3 ms·
It's learned by going through trauma or PTSD enduring experiences. That's what the empirical data showed. It is not learned by simple teaching and seeing others
by didibus 6y ago
It's learned by going through trauma or PTSD enduring experiences. That's what the empirical data showed. It is not learned by simple teaching and seeing others attitudes, that bit was a non proven hypothesis that the interviewee said they think cultural differences might have an effect, but their experimentation were only done in Israel.
So when you hear "learned behavior" don't think as in this is what my parents told me or taught me. It means this was learned by being mistreated as a child, not given consistent care and attention, and such.
> You don’t need to have been victimized, physically abused, for example, in order to exhibit TIV. But the people who score very high on TIV are generally those who have experienced some kind of trauma, like PTSD
> when a child is very young, and care is uncertain, perhaps the caregiver, or the male figures in the child’s life, don’t act consistently, sometimes they may act very aggressively without warning, or they don’t notice that the child needs care. That’s when the anxious attachment style or ambivalent attachment style is created
> This is just my hypothesis, but there are certain societies, particularly those with long histories of prolonged conflict, where the central narrative of the society is a victim-oriented narrative, which is the Jewish narrative
- roflc0ptic 6y agoYou're overgeneralizing. The data showed that it can be learned through trauma or PTSD experiences, but to claim "It is not learned by simple teaching and seeing others attitudes" is not defensible. Based on the researcher's comments about kindergarteners, they seem to think it can be learned through simple teaching.
- magicalist 6y ago> Based on the researcher's comments about kindergarteners, they seem to think... In this situation, one thing is supported by data, the other is inferred from what you think the researcher thinks. Generally this forum looks down more on "they're indoctrinating our children with X!" claims without some actual data.
- roflc0ptic 6y agoI'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the study as represented doesn't support claiming it's false, and that the researchers words support my position.
- addicted 6y agoExcept they have no evidence for it, so I’m not sure why we should be bothered what they might “think”. There’s also little a priori reason to believe that might be true.
- roflc0ptic 6y agoI think there's a lot of a priori reason to believe that might be true. The phenomenon of vicarious traumatization points to a mechanism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_traumatization#:~:text=Vicarious%20traumatization%20(VT)%20is%20a,to%20the%20client's%20traumatic%20material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_traumatization#:~:te....
- username90 6y ago> There’s also little a priori reason to believe that might be true. What? You don't believe that constantly telling someone they are a victim during their entire childhood can make them feel like a victim? There are really no a priori reasons to believe that such a thing could be true? You could argue that there are little evidence for it, but you can't argue there are no a priori reasons for it being true. If I take a white kid and tell that white kid that he is a victim of black oppression, do you think that the kid will be more or less likely to feel like a victim of black oppression?
- strogonoff 6y agoI wouldn’t go as far as to presume that a typical parent, having been traumatised through being a victim of such a system themselves, is capable of teaching the topic strictly informatively, with impartiality and without imparting a (hopefully lesser) trauma on their children. It tends to seep through generations.