4 ms·

The content of nightmares is the reporting that feeds into the processes of reflection and therapeutic correction. No dreams, no clue as to what specifically li

The content of nightmares is the reporting that feeds into the processes of reflection and therapeutic correction. No dreams, no clue as to what specifically lies at the core of an unresolved traumatic experience. Unpleasant as they are, they are also useful indicative tools toward recovery.

crazygringo 4y ago
First, it's one stream of reporting among many. Free journaling, free association, recounting, there are so many tools therapists use. And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. But the idea that nightmares need to be kept ongoing has absolutely no basis.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. Glad we've established the principles and now we're just arguing over the details :)
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    I have grown up reading books by people of the opinion you hold, making strong, very easy to believe claims about human mind. None if that is true. All people I know who followed these teachings never really struggled in life but they have a heck of a ton to say about how others should live their life. Honestly I only think that those who hold opinions like yours (without any factual support) are a cancer, but besides the point: Can you please provide any peer reviewed research to support your opinion?
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Well we're not. :) Your point was that nightmares need to continue in order to heal. My point is that they don't. There is zero benefit to that, only harm. The 10-20 nightmares I'm referring to can be referenced from the past. They're not about benefit from future ones. And also you don't need the nightmares at all, because there are plenty of other sources of material. You're already misrepresenting the utility of nightmares in therapy. Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      Sorry I thought we had a glimmer of common ground there. You seem so very sure of yourself. It doesn't hurt me for you to continue with your beliefs if the only issue is that we disagree. It's just the end of a promising conversation.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      > Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your comments are in agreement with @nonrandomstring's comments. You did happen to admit to the efficacy of experiencing nightmares as a means of reflection[0] and are now only trying to argue that 1) it's not necessary for nightmares to be experienced past a certain point[1] and 2) it's possible for this reflection to be done via other means[0]. @nonrandomstring's point[2] has been that experiencing the nightmares is therapeutic as a means of reflection. To speak to possibly why this miscommunication happened, I can look at their comments and see places where they could use "a" instead of "the" or "can be" instead of "is" but it's worth noting that I can also look at your comments and see similar things. [0] > First, it's one stream of reporting among many. [1] > And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. [2] > Suppressing them may not be helpful and actually just kick the can down the road.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        You make some fair and useful observations on nuances of language which I'll try to pay more attention to. I really wish that, had I said; "Glad we've established a principle and now we're just arguing over some details" it would have made a difference. But I get the feeling there is underlying hostility toward my reasonable and prudent critique of a technology, and not specifically anything to do with crazygringo's disputation. Two things make me think that. One is that immediately I was deluged with low-rent "show us proof" comments, which frankly seem childish because a cursory search on "why we dream" would turn up hundreds of results, many theories and links to experimental evidence that are widely considered common sense today. I subsequently replied with links to some of the lowest hanging fruit in recent psychology literature. The other is that a simple, sincere question designed to open up a discussion and get to the nub of the matter was immediately and tactically downvoted to -3. Does the question "why do people have nightmares?" strike anyone as provocative, sarcastic, fulminating or in bad faith? I think what happened here in this thread remains as evidence for coordinated resistance to rational enquiry and supports my case that there are elements of anti-intellectualism here on HN.
brookst 4y ago
Do you have any evidence for this viewpoint? Absent some credible evidence, I'm going to file this in the same bucket as "God just wants people to suffer, so if you are suffering and try to improve your situation, you are violating God's will and will burn in hell for eternity." I'll admit I've only looked at PTSD a little bit, but I haven't seen anything indicating that the severity declines with more nightmares. Have you?
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  Why do nightmares exist? What other bodily function would you just turn off? I'm sure the body has vestigial processes, but why is it correct to assume nightmares are such a process? Shouldn't you start off with the assumption that they're useful? Shouldn't you be the one who has to prove this is safe?
  - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    Why do appendices sometimes burst? Maybe having a burst appendix is a good thing and the horrible pain serves some beneficial purpose???
    - kyleyeats 4y ago
      When to use a throwaway 101: When you don't know what the word "vestigial" means.
      - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
        When to point out a person's username 101: You have nothing useful to say.
        kyleyeats 4y ago
        Internet 101: Projection

crazygringo 4y ago

First, it's one stream of reporting among many. Free journaling, free association, recounting, there are so many tools therapists use. And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. But the idea that nightmares need to be kept ongoing has absolutely no basis.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. Glad we've established the principles and now we're just arguing over the details :)
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  I have grown up reading books by people of the opinion you hold, making strong, very easy to believe claims about human mind. None if that is true. All people I know who followed these teachings never really struggled in life but they have a heck of a ton to say about how others should live their life. Honestly I only think that those who hold opinions like yours (without any factual support) are a cancer, but besides the point: Can you please provide any peer reviewed research to support your opinion?
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Well we're not. :) Your point was that nightmares need to continue in order to heal. My point is that they don't. There is zero benefit to that, only harm. The 10-20 nightmares I'm referring to can be referenced from the past. They're not about benefit from future ones. And also you don't need the nightmares at all, because there are plenty of other sources of material. You're already misrepresenting the utility of nightmares in therapy. Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Sorry I thought we had a glimmer of common ground there. You seem so very sure of yourself. It doesn't hurt me for you to continue with your beliefs if the only issue is that we disagree. It's just the end of a promising conversation.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    > Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your comments are in agreement with @nonrandomstring's comments. You did happen to admit to the efficacy of experiencing nightmares as a means of reflection[0] and are now only trying to argue that 1) it's not necessary for nightmares to be experienced past a certain point[1] and 2) it's possible for this reflection to be done via other means[0]. @nonrandomstring's point[2] has been that experiencing the nightmares is therapeutic as a means of reflection. To speak to possibly why this miscommunication happened, I can look at their comments and see places where they could use "a" instead of "the" or "can be" instead of "is" but it's worth noting that I can also look at your comments and see similar things. [0] > First, it's one stream of reporting among many. [1] > And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. [2] > Suppressing them may not be helpful and actually just kick the can down the road.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      You make some fair and useful observations on nuances of language which I'll try to pay more attention to. I really wish that, had I said; "Glad we've established a principle and now we're just arguing over some details" it would have made a difference. But I get the feeling there is underlying hostility toward my reasonable and prudent critique of a technology, and not specifically anything to do with crazygringo's disputation. Two things make me think that. One is that immediately I was deluged with low-rent "show us proof" comments, which frankly seem childish because a cursory search on "why we dream" would turn up hundreds of results, many theories and links to experimental evidence that are widely considered common sense today. I subsequently replied with links to some of the lowest hanging fruit in recent psychology literature. The other is that a simple, sincere question designed to open up a discussion and get to the nub of the matter was immediately and tactically downvoted to -3. Does the question "why do people have nightmares?" strike anyone as provocative, sarcastic, fulminating or in bad faith? I think what happened here in this thread remains as evidence for coordinated resistance to rational enquiry and supports my case that there are elements of anti-intellectualism here on HN.

brookst 4y ago

Do you have any evidence for this viewpoint? Absent some credible evidence, I'm going to file this in the same bucket as "God just wants people to suffer, so if you are suffering and try to improve your situation, you are violating God's will and will burn in hell for eternity." I'll admit I've only looked at PTSD a little bit, but I haven't seen anything indicating that the severity declines with more nightmares. Have you?

kyleyeats 4y ago
Why do nightmares exist? What other bodily function would you just turn off? I'm sure the body has vestigial processes, but why is it correct to assume nightmares are such a process? Shouldn't you start off with the assumption that they're useful? Shouldn't you be the one who has to prove this is safe?
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  Why do appendices sometimes burst? Maybe having a burst appendix is a good thing and the horrible pain serves some beneficial purpose???
  - kyleyeats 4y ago
    When to use a throwaway 101: When you don't know what the word "vestigial" means.
    - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      When to point out a person's username 101: You have nothing useful to say.
      - kyleyeats 4y ago
        Internet 101: Projection