3 ms·
Yeah, part of the problem is in the wording too. It's incorrect to say "it's all in your head" because this makes it sound like the person experiencing the pain
by xwowsersx 5y ago
Yeah, part of the problem is in the wording too. It's incorrect to say "it's all in your head" because this makes it sound like the person experiencing the pain is just imagining it or that it's entirely a construct of their mind. What Sarno points out is that there might be some underlying physical issue at play, but it's the extent of the pain that has a psychological component to it. As an example, two people can have the same exact x-ray of their back showing some alignment or other issue. One person will experience extraordinary pain and the other barely any at all. The fact that this is left unexplained by chiropractors (who are mostly kooks IMO), for example, should be a big red flag. How can it be that people who are supposedly experts in this field cannot explain for a basic a discrepancy like this?
I think the right way to open people up to this is to acknowledge and validate their pain, that it's real (not "in your head"), but have them consider that the mind-body connection could explain more than perhaps they had previously realized. If you start out the gate with "it's all in your head", not only in this not correct, but it turns the person off because it sounds dismissive and pseudo-scientific.
- codingdave 5y agoExcept that it is all in our heads, ultimately. Pain is a sensation in our brains, based on inputs from everything else. That "everything else" is often our physical nerves, but can also be everything else going on in our heads. If someone needs to meld the idea of psych-driven pain with physical pain, trying to deny that they come together in our heads can backfire. It is more important to focus on what we even mean by pain being "real", and that it being in our heads does not invalidate it in the slightest. It is real, and there are more paths to recovery to explore.
- tsol 5y ago>One person will experience extraordinary pain and the other barely any at all. The fact that this is left unexplained by chiropractors (who are mostly kooks IMO), for example, should be a big red flag. How can it be that people who are supposedly experts in this field cannot explain for a basic a discrepancy like this? Not sure what chiropractors have to do with this, you can see an MD for your back pain too but they'll be equally hard pressed to find the reason for the difference. And that's simply because there are countless variables-- x-rays don't show you cell level differences between the patients, central sensitization in the brain plays a part, different pain tolerance(ie something as simple as being a redhead is associated with increased pain), the level to which a certain amount of pain causes psychological distress can also change, coping mechanisms used, etc