> I believe trauma instills scientific-type knowledge that is factually false but locally adaptive. One has to step back and recognize that the author separat

> I believe trauma instills scientific-type knowledge that is factually false but locally adaptive. One has to step back and recognize that the author separates knowledge into 'trivial' (information needed to pass a test), 'engineering' (how to drive a car) and 'scientific' (math, physics, science). This is a way of categorizing knowledge along the usefulness/utility axis and is problematic in many ways but let's leave that aside. > False beliefs need more protection to be maintained than true beliefs, so the belief both calcifies, making it unresponsive to new information, and lays a bunch of emotional landmines around itself to punish you for getting too close to it. This 'narrative-weaving' is a good first step but the next step has to be to run it through various test cases to see if it holds up. I don't think it does on many levels but let's take one - what constitutes a false belief vs a true belief and who decides a belief is false and that it needs calcification and landmines to protect it? A 'true' belief can just as easily be surrounded by emotional landmines - for example someone who had been abused as a child can have all kinds of defense mechanisms to prevent that situation from repeating itself. Or is that a 'false' belief because most people are not out to abuse him/her? Does a belief morph from being true to being false, depending on your surroundings? For example the child needed the defenses in an abusive household but is then adopted by a loving family, does that change the belief from being true to being false somehow? This nilly-willy use of language to me, is indicative of absence of training in philosophy, where you can't just say things, because people have been saying things for 2500+ years and most weak arguments have already been debunked from multiple angles.