4 ms·
What you call "intuitive" I call "not at all obvious or even remotely expected". There's simply no evidence either way that can't be contradicted by opposing an
by TaupeRanger 4y ago
What you call "intuitive" I call "not at all obvious or even remotely expected". There's simply no evidence either way that can't be contradicted by opposing anecdotes. That's really all I'm saying. It's not related to The McNamara Fallacy at all, because there's no obvious observation that supports the initial notion. It simply isn't common sense, even if you want it to be.
- iinnPP 4y agoI think you can prove his point to a degree if you take the dog example. Specifically when said child doesn't already own a dog. They could use the knowledge to either not get into the situation entirely or to embrace the situation regardless. The former will always result in less trauma over time. Unless I am missing something. The latter is open to debate. Thinking like this is regards to past relationships, I have prevented a lot of self trauma through experience with trauma.
- unethical_ban 4y agoYour assertion is that reading or hearing about life experiences does not prepare a person for a similar life experience. This is absurd on its face. I'm sorry I don't have a journal article to substantiate my claim.
- TaupeRanger 4y agoPretty obvious strawman. I'm saying I'm skeptical that kids who've been told scary stories actually handle real-life trauma better than kids who weren't told scary stories.