5 ms·

People who are suffering from trauma don't need advice. They need comfort and support. Comfort in, dump out is a simple rule that makes sense in many situation

by apo 8y ago

People who are suffering from trauma don't need advice. They need comfort and support. Comfort in, dump out is a simple rule that makes sense in many situations. Breast cancer is given as an example in the article. I think it breaks down in many of life's situations, though. What if the trauma is self-inflicted? At what point do those outside the ring become enablers? For example, a friend of yours refuses to learn how to manage resources. Every week is a new crisis due to running out of money or being late. At what point do you sit down with your friend and explain how their lack of planning is hurting them? Back to disease, what if the person is suffering negative health effects due to being overweight? And yet they refuse to change their junk food diet. What then? Listen, offer to do dishes and make a pot roast? Or something more likely to help the person make the connection that their health is in their own hands?

lcuff 8y ago
It's a reasonable position, although a counter-argument is that for many people, a self-inflicted problem such as being overweight isn't all that amenable to conscious control. So, giving the advice: "you're overweight, it causes many other problems, you should do something about that" isn't especially useful. An article in the Atlantic from 2015 summarized this: "Victims of childhood sexual abuse are far more likely to become obese adults. New research shows that early trauma is so damaging that it can disrupt a person’s entire psychology and metabolism." The depth of the problem is beyond the kind of repair possible with explanations and advice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
stonecraftwolf 8y ago
Both of your scenarios assume that the issue is due to some fixable personal failing, and both of those assumptions are unfounded. “Lack of planning” is how you might describe “poor executive functioning” if you were to attach a moral weight to it; in reality, poor executive functioning is itself often a symptom of trauma, particularly complex or developmental trauma. It is also a feature of autism, particularly in how it manifests differently among women. Similarly, there are many people for whom no known weight loss method has worked without intolerable costs. (Suicidal ideation, dramatic hair loss, debilitating fatigue or cognitive deficits.) This seems to be one of those things that people often refuse to believe, instead gas lighting the hell out of the people who suffer from this. I have known people who’s compulsive behavior absolutely contributed to their weight problems (and in those cases, trauma was also a factor), but I’ve also known people who have done and tried everything, and the way they suffer is not something I would wish on anyone. We don’t yet fully understand how trauma, particularly long term trauma, affects the body, let alone the metabolism, nervous system, endocrine system, or even GI tract, but everything we are learning seems to point to profound effects. It seems incredible to assume that there might not be purely physiological mechanisms at work beyond the control of self-directed behavior. In general, trauma symptoms encompass many more dysfunctional behaviors than is often understood by lay people, and while self-destructive behaviors in response to trauma or persistent C/PTSD are no less self-destructive because of their origins, describing them in moralist terms is actively harmful. It is often more accurate, and compassionate, to describe those behaviors as adaptations to stress that have become maladaptive. They are not moral failings; they are the result of bad conditioning. Put another way: if the only tools you have for internal regulation are shitty tools, you learn to depend on shitty tools to survive. This does not make traumatized people any easier to be around or to help. You still need to draw your own boundaries, as you noted. But if you’re able to approach such people within your own acceptable boundaries with an open mind, and the willingness to point them towards trauma treatment that might actually be helpful, those conversations you’re not sure how to have might have better outcomes. For further reading on trauma I’d recommend Van der Kolk, Levine, and others.
- DenisM 8y ago
  You don't have to read moral judgement into apo's comment, and if you don't one problem comes into focus: it's well good to listen support a person unconditionally in their difficulties, but some the sufferers need to change their behavior and you can't effect that through nodding and bringing in comfort food. If you want a person to change you have to tell them something they don't want to her. At what point do switch from one to another?
  - warent 8y ago
    Ultimately it doesn't matter how much we want another person to change. Things will only affect change when people are ready and willing. When that happens, it will be pretty obvious, especially if you're someone they trust. At that point it does make sense to make the switch to being forthcoming and honest as you mentioned. In the mean time? Don't enable, but don't be direct in telling them what they aren't ready to hear either. Of course, be empathetic and gentle, offer guidance and help along the way but provide no unsolicited advice. Unless you're a therapist, you should either change the topic or don't associate with them at all, or else you risk making matters worse and deepening the problem. Disclaimer: I'm not professional in the matter, this has just been my personal approach in life that's worked well so far.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      > either change the topic or don't associate with them at all [...] this has just been my personal approach in life that's worked well so far. This may work out for you, but it’s hard to judge how well it works out for the people you decide to stop associating with (especially in comparison to some counterfactual other approach), since presumably you don’t get much follow-up information about the outcome.
    - DenisM 8y ago
      > Things will only affect change when people are ready and willing I find this unsatisfactory. There is a period in a persons life where they will not listen to advice, then when they might be suggestible, and finally when they will act even on their own accord. If we pretend that the second period is non-existent we can sleep well because nothing can be done and so nothing should be done. But the logical me rebels against this notion - there has to be a transitionary period. Perhaps by pushing someone over the edge during that time I will save them years of wallowing in the tar pit of indecision.
watwut 8y ago
The friend does not have trauma. Overweight does not have trauma either. More importantly for overweight advice, it does matter whether you know and really are expert or whether you base advice on latest pop article or a random dude in gym theory. You can comfort without being enabler. Don't give money to spender, but listen and be friend. (Or don't if it is harming you). Your impulsive friend will not magically become less impulsive just because you had lecture anyway. That is not how it works. He will need way more effort and support and will take long time to change - but only if he wants it.
mcguire 8y ago
Telling someone who is overweight that they are fat and need to cut down on the cheesey puffs, or someone who has difficulties managing resources that they need to learn to plan, is unlikely to help them in any way. They probably already know. It might make you feel better, I suppose...
philwelch 8y ago
1. People don't take advice. People usually don't even take solicited advice, let alone unsolicited. So my advice is to never give it. 2. This is a discussion about emotional comforting. If someone has breast cancer, most people should follow this framework. The oncologist is not necessarily going to follow this exact framework, because his role is not merely that of the emotional comforter. If you have a role in someone's life that is more "problem solver" than "emotional comforter", this framework does not apply--but, per point #1, people don't usually take it well when people self-appoint themselves as problem solvers. 3. If someone is continually making self-destructive choices, you don't have to be their friend. It's very draining to care about a self-destructive person, and it's not going to do them or you any good to remain in that kind of relationship.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Point 1 is highly debatable. I've many times been given good advice I don't want to hear, and given good advice that others don't want to hear. The pattern I've seen in myself and others is about 24 hours of grumpiness verging on sulking, then take the feedback on board and do things differently. If anything, I've been surprised by how receptive others are to my advice, especially considering their pushback in the 5-10 minutes where it is being given. And the same in myself. Also point 3 is actually somewhat dangerous, particularly if you try and apply it to your family. It is a divisive mindset.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    The flip side of point 3, and probably the better way to go about things in most cases, is to accept the fact that other people have autonomy and just let them do whatever the hell they're gonna do in most cases. If you have family members who eat too much or smoke or gamble or drink a lot, it would be ridiculous to cut them out of your life over it. Just get over the fact that they're not running their lives in the perfect, ideal way that you would and love them anyway. But if someone is in one of the the deepest, darkest pits of fucked-upedness that you've seen in your entire life, well.... Point 1 is stated a bit too strongly, which I tried to temper a bit by jokingly contradicting it. I think a lot of interpersonal stuff is best handled with Postel's Law: be conservative with what you emit and liberal with what you accept. There is a time and a place to offer advice to people, just as there is a time and a place to offer rebuke, shame, or a punch to the face, but these are terrible default modes of interaction, and I think apo likely shares my personal flaw of defaulting to advice far too often. By all means, especially if you're dealing with someone in a deep, dark pit of fucked-upedness and you seriously want to help guide them to salvation, give them advice. But do so very deliberately. The stereotypical example of this is an "intervention", and I'm not sure how effective that particular modality is, but the basic idea of treating it as a very serious move that must be done as carefully as possible, with plenty of forethought and love and good faith, seems like the right approach. And if they never make a good faith attempt to change things in response to that, well...at that point, it circles back to point 3, and if you follow through on point 3, you're definitely not enabling them anymore. Although even then, there's still a chance they'll break into the house and steal the TV.
sjg007 8y ago
grow up.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.

by apo 8y ago

lcuff 8y ago

It's a reasonable position, although a counter-argument is that for many people, a self-inflicted problem such as being overweight isn't all that amenable to conscious control. So, giving the advice: "you're overweight, it causes many other problems, you should do something about that" isn't especially useful. An article in the Atlantic from 2015 summarized this: "Victims of childhood sexual abuse are far more likely to become obese adults. New research shows that early trauma is so damaging that it can disrupt a person’s entire psychology and metabolism." The depth of the problem is beyond the kind of repair possible with explanations and advice.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

stonecraftwolf 8y ago

Both of your scenarios assume that the issue is due to some fixable personal failing, and both of those assumptions are unfounded. “Lack of planning” is how you might describe “poor executive functioning” if you were to attach a moral weight to it; in reality, poor executive functioning is itself often a symptom of trauma, particularly complex or developmental trauma. It is also a feature of autism, particularly in how it manifests differently among women. Similarly, there are many people for whom no known weight loss method has worked without intolerable costs. (Suicidal ideation, dramatic hair loss, debilitating fatigue or cognitive deficits.) This seems to be one of those things that people often refuse to believe, instead gas lighting the hell out of the people who suffer from this. I have known people who’s compulsive behavior absolutely contributed to their weight problems (and in those cases, trauma was also a factor), but I’ve also known people who have done and tried everything, and the way they suffer is not something I would wish on anyone. We don’t yet fully understand how trauma, particularly long term trauma, affects the body, let alone the metabolism, nervous system, endocrine system, or even GI tract, but everything we are learning seems to point to profound effects. It seems incredible to assume that there might not be purely physiological mechanisms at work beyond the control of self-directed behavior. In general, trauma symptoms encompass many more dysfunctional behaviors than is often understood by lay people, and while self-destructive behaviors in response to trauma or persistent C/PTSD are no less self-destructive because of their origins, describing them in moralist terms is actively harmful. It is often more accurate, and compassionate, to describe those behaviors as adaptations to stress that have become maladaptive. They are not moral failings; they are the result of bad conditioning. Put another way: if the only tools you have for internal regulation are shitty tools, you learn to depend on shitty tools to survive. This does not make traumatized people any easier to be around or to help. You still need to draw your own boundaries, as you noted. But if you’re able to approach such people within your own acceptable boundaries with an open mind, and the willingness to point them towards trauma treatment that might actually be helpful, those conversations you’re not sure how to have might have better outcomes. For further reading on trauma I’d recommend Van der Kolk, Levine, and others.

DenisM 8y ago
You don't have to read moral judgement into apo's comment, and if you don't one problem comes into focus: it's well good to listen support a person unconditionally in their difficulties, but some the sufferers need to change their behavior and you can't effect that through nodding and bringing in comfort food. If you want a person to change you have to tell them something they don't want to her. At what point do switch from one to another?
- warent 8y ago
  Ultimately it doesn't matter how much we want another person to change. Things will only affect change when people are ready and willing. When that happens, it will be pretty obvious, especially if you're someone they trust. At that point it does make sense to make the switch to being forthcoming and honest as you mentioned. In the mean time? Don't enable, but don't be direct in telling them what they aren't ready to hear either. Of course, be empathetic and gentle, offer guidance and help along the way but provide no unsolicited advice. Unless you're a therapist, you should either change the topic or don't associate with them at all, or else you risk making matters worse and deepening the problem. Disclaimer: I'm not professional in the matter, this has just been my personal approach in life that's worked well so far.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    > either change the topic or don't associate with them at all [...] this has just been my personal approach in life that's worked well so far. This may work out for you, but it’s hard to judge how well it works out for the people you decide to stop associating with (especially in comparison to some counterfactual other approach), since presumably you don’t get much follow-up information about the outcome.
  - DenisM 8y ago
    > Things will only affect change when people are ready and willing I find this unsatisfactory. There is a period in a persons life where they will not listen to advice, then when they might be suggestible, and finally when they will act even on their own accord. If we pretend that the second period is non-existent we can sleep well because nothing can be done and so nothing should be done. But the logical me rebels against this notion - there has to be a transitionary period. Perhaps by pushing someone over the edge during that time I will save them years of wallowing in the tar pit of indecision.

watwut 8y ago

The friend does not have trauma. Overweight does not have trauma either. More importantly for overweight advice, it does matter whether you know and really are expert or whether you base advice on latest pop article or a random dude in gym theory. You can comfort without being enabler. Don't give money to spender, but listen and be friend. (Or don't if it is harming you). Your impulsive friend will not magically become less impulsive just because you had lecture anyway. That is not how it works. He will need way more effort and support and will take long time to change - but only if he wants it.

mcguire 8y ago

Telling someone who is overweight that they are fat and need to cut down on the cheesey puffs, or someone who has difficulties managing resources that they need to learn to plan, is unlikely to help them in any way. They probably already know. It might make you feel better, I suppose...

philwelch 8y ago

1. People don't take advice. People usually don't even take solicited advice, let alone unsolicited. So my advice is to never give it. 2. This is a discussion about emotional comforting. If someone has breast cancer, most people should follow this framework. The oncologist is not necessarily going to follow this exact framework, because his role is not merely that of the emotional comforter. If you have a role in someone's life that is more "problem solver" than "emotional comforter", this framework does not apply--but, per point #1, people don't usually take it well when people self-appoint themselves as problem solvers. 3. If someone is continually making self-destructive choices, you don't have to be their friend. It's very draining to care about a self-destructive person, and it's not going to do them or you any good to remain in that kind of relationship.

roenxi 8y ago
Point 1 is highly debatable. I've many times been given good advice I don't want to hear, and given good advice that others don't want to hear. The pattern I've seen in myself and others is about 24 hours of grumpiness verging on sulking, then take the feedback on board and do things differently. If anything, I've been surprised by how receptive others are to my advice, especially considering their pushback in the 5-10 minutes where it is being given. And the same in myself. Also point 3 is actually somewhat dangerous, particularly if you try and apply it to your family. It is a divisive mindset.
- philwelch 8y ago
  The flip side of point 3, and probably the better way to go about things in most cases, is to accept the fact that other people have autonomy and just let them do whatever the hell they're gonna do in most cases. If you have family members who eat too much or smoke or gamble or drink a lot, it would be ridiculous to cut them out of your life over it. Just get over the fact that they're not running their lives in the perfect, ideal way that you would and love them anyway. But if someone is in one of the the deepest, darkest pits of fucked-upedness that you've seen in your entire life, well.... Point 1 is stated a bit too strongly, which I tried to temper a bit by jokingly contradicting it. I think a lot of interpersonal stuff is best handled with Postel's Law: be conservative with what you emit and liberal with what you accept. There is a time and a place to offer advice to people, just as there is a time and a place to offer rebuke, shame, or a punch to the face, but these are terrible default modes of interaction, and I think apo likely shares my personal flaw of defaulting to advice far too often. By all means, especially if you're dealing with someone in a deep, dark pit of fucked-upedness and you seriously want to help guide them to salvation, give them advice. But do so very deliberately. The stereotypical example of this is an "intervention", and I'm not sure how effective that particular modality is, but the basic idea of treating it as a very serious move that must be done as carefully as possible, with plenty of forethought and love and good faith, seems like the right approach. And if they never make a good faith attempt to change things in response to that, well...at that point, it circles back to point 3, and if you follow through on point 3, you're definitely not enabling them anymore. Although even then, there's still a chance they'll break into the house and steal the TV.

sjg007 8y ago

grow up.

dang 8y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.