3 ms·

Isn't "The Body Keeps the Score" regarded as a crackpot book full of long-discredited theories? E.g. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0706743705050

Isn't "The Body Keeps the Score" regarded as a crackpot book full of long-discredited theories? E.g. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370505001302 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370505001... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/08/02/body-keeps-score-grieving-brain-bessel-van-der-kolk-neuroscience-self-help/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/08/02/body-keeps-s...

nonrandomstring 3y ago
No. And some would say that elements of the "medical profession" have spent a lot of money soliciting hit pieces that try to weaken the link between trauma and physiological effects. But that would be a pointless 'argument' to get into since there is mountains of dishonest rubbish on both sides. Instead I think this rather reputable Psychology Today summary on the causal links of trauma and consequent disorders is worth a read [0]; [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connection/202103/how-trauma-affects-the-body https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connec...
- feoren 3y ago
  Can you give a single example of the oddly scare-quoted "medical profession" soliciting a hit piece on anything, ever?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    this question seems naive, despite the hyperbole from the parent-post. Western accredited medicine has made huge advances in things like antibiotics or germ-theory, yet have struggled with common definitions of mental health and its complement, mental illness. It was not very long ago, but perhaps two generations ago, that very, very different ideas of diagnosis and prescription for mental health conditions were published as fact with the force of law. There are literally hundreds of modern books written responsibly, but with varying levels of rigor and accredation, on these topics. Since every thinking person also has moods, aging parents, and sometimes ill relatives or personal episodes, the source pool for writing is endless. Last IMHO - yes, the American Medical Association and its accredited members do in fact draw lines, that change over time, but are defended at the time, sometimes aggressively. It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Yet the decisions change over time. etc...
    - feoren 3y ago
      > It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Those are different worlds. The latter is someone arguing in good faith, albeit wrongly and stubbornly, for something they believe is true. The former is spending money intentionally trying to discredit something because you're worried it's true (or people will find out it's true). One is honest and the other is not. That matters. The original comment accused the medical profession of spending "a lot of money" soliciting "hit pieces". Not some bad actors, but ("elements of", whatever that means) the medical profession as a whole. Not occasionally, not in a few notorious instances, but spending "a lot of money". Not being stubborn, not appealing to authority instead of evidence, but "hit pieces". That is bullshit disinformation and I called the poster on it. Nothing you said about our understanding of medicine changing over time, slower than it should have, involving more fights and stubbornness than it should, gets anywhere near the profession spending a lot of money on hit pieces.
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        The error that you've made, and then run a mile with is right there in your first response when you say "oddly scare-quoted". You took that to be disparaging of medical professionals whereas in fact the work those quotes are doing in that sentence is precisely the opposite; to throw scorn on the idea that it was "medical professionals" who said that. I can see how you made that mistake. And maybe I should have been more forthright in saying that - hey maybe Gabor Mate (being the "some" who might say) has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Sadly, it shows rather clearly how we all impose beliefs we already have (especially about other people) on the words we read. Maybe where you could have jumped off that mistake train was where I said without stubbornness, that no, I have no evidence of such a thing and even if I did, I would not deem it credible. Nonetheless it has been said, whether you or I believe it or not, and if you want more details then you'll have to read Mate's book.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    No. And I would not even attempt to because I feel sure that anything I found (especially from a casual search on the internet) would not be credible. As I said there is mud-slinging on both sides. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that the original claim of "crackpot" theories that have been "debunked" is just more of the same opinionated, unscientific bunkum.
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  I'm not sure what medical conspiracy theory you're on about, but it's trivially true that emotions have corresponding physiological signals. Electrical signals in the brain, hormonal signals to the rest of the body. The understanding of the physiological response to stress goes back at least to the 30s and 40s with the work of endocrinologist Hans Selye, before van der Kolk was even born. Unless I'm missing something, the article you linked seems to give an unproblematic summary of the basic science of the physiological response to trauma. What your link doesn't address are the points brought up by the links I posted, such as van der Kolk’s attempt to revive the disastrous repressed memory theory, his misunderstanding of fMRI studies, his misrepresentation of the research on mirror neurons, his use of the discredited lizard brain idea, etc.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    It seems we agree on all the important facts. You have an issue with van der Kolk, but I cannot comment on that, having never read "The Body Keeps the Score". Gabor Mate, who I have read, does mention numerous occurrences in his career as MD where people had told him that making links between trauma and, for example auto-immune diseases, was "career suicide". Not sure what you make of that.
    - ants_everywhere 3y ago
      Oh gotcha, sounds good. I am not familiar with Gabor Mate, but it depends on what his theory was. Wikipedia tells me he considers ADHD to be a coping mechanism. So for example if he had a theory that trauma can cause things like ADHD, then I'd say I don't think that particular theory seems to be supported by the evidence. But it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that two seemingly unrelated complicated things can be linked. It's possible that he got that advice because he felt he was onto a grand theory and the evidence wasn't there for it. Or whatever, who knows. It's possible there is something to say about anxiety/cortisol/stress, neurodivergence, gut micro-biomes, and some autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes. There are studies on all of this stuff, but it's all in early stages, we don't know if the statistical effects are even real. And we certainly have no reason to conclude that one set of effects would cause the other.
sonofhans 3y ago
I’ve read your sources and they don’t say what you claim. Your first source says: “* Memories of trauma are seldom, if ever, truly forgotten. * Memories of trauma are often vivid, but they are not immutable (memory does not operate like a videotape machine). * Not thinking about a trauma for a long time is not the same as being unable to remember it.” None of that meaningfully contradicts “The Body Keeps the Score.” Your second source’s strongest criticism seems to be of this sort: “When we collapse or disengage in a dangerous situation, van der Kolk says, we’ve been taken over by the dorsal vagal complex, “an evolutionarily ancient part of the parasympathetic nervous system.” Except the dorsal vagal complex hasn’t actually been proved to exist in humans.” Again, that doesn’t contradict anything important in “The Body Keeps the Score.”
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  > None of that meaningfully contradicts “The Body Keeps the Score.” I haven't read it, that's why I asked it as a question. What I've heard about the book is that it's not supported by the science. At least in the popular press I've seen positive coverage of the book claim that van der Kolk argues your mind can forget trauma and you can work from data from your body to recover information about forgotten trauma. For example, this school of life video [0] at t=284. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like perhaps you're saying that's not a core part of the book. If so, then I defer to you since I haven't read it. But from the limited press I've seen, that appears to be what many people take away from it. > I’ve read your sources and they don’t say what you claim Hmm, okay, but I see them as being far more critical. The second article talks in general about how he helps himself to discredited or unsupported theories, or in some cases research that he just doesn't seem to understand. The first one talks about how his theory that the brain can forget trauma that is encoded in the body as the same "mistaken reasoning" that caused "arguably the most serious catastrophe to strike the mental health field since the lobotomy era." I don't know of any studies that evaluate the various interventions he suggests. Some of it I think is well studied, some seems more experimental. Some related ideas, such as shame or guilt being encoded in sunken body posture etc are old and well known and don't seem to be related to trauma in particular, at least not trauma as studied by psychologists. My guess is that the book, like many pop psych books, may be a mixed bag and that lots of people see the overall work as a net benefit even if some of the psych community is concerned about inaccurate representation of the results and the revival of the old memory wars. https://youtu.be/QSCXyYuT2rE?t=284 https://youtu.be/QSCXyYuT2rE?t=284
dimal 3y ago
I don’t think 100% of the claims will hold up over time, but I would not call it crackpot or discredited, by a long shot. Simply acknowledging that childhood trauma has some consistent effects and being 60% right. would be doing better than the American Psychiatric Association, which still hasn’t even added CPTSD to the DSM. They seem intent on pathologizing just about every type of behavior imaginable, but they don’t seem to think childhood trauma is very relevant to mental health.
- voisin 3y ago
  > Simply acknowledging that childhood trauma has some consistent effects and being 60% right The book is far from limited to childhood trauma. It is any event that leads to overreaction of the sympathetic nervous system causing increased cortisol downstream that the body struggles to adapt to. This can be consistent micro-stressors or singular major events. No requirement for them to have happened in childhood.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

No. And some would say that elements of the "medical profession" have spent a lot of money soliciting hit pieces that try to weaken the link between trauma and physiological effects. But that would be a pointless 'argument' to get into since there is mountains of dishonest rubbish on both sides. Instead I think this rather reputable Psychology Today summary on the causal links of trauma and consequent disorders is worth a read [0]; [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connection/202103/how-trauma-affects-the-body https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connec...

feoren 3y ago
Can you give a single example of the oddly scare-quoted "medical profession" soliciting a hit piece on anything, ever?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this question seems naive, despite the hyperbole from the parent-post. Western accredited medicine has made huge advances in things like antibiotics or germ-theory, yet have struggled with common definitions of mental health and its complement, mental illness. It was not very long ago, but perhaps two generations ago, that very, very different ideas of diagnosis and prescription for mental health conditions were published as fact with the force of law. There are literally hundreds of modern books written responsibly, but with varying levels of rigor and accredation, on these topics. Since every thinking person also has moods, aging parents, and sometimes ill relatives or personal episodes, the source pool for writing is endless. Last IMHO - yes, the American Medical Association and its accredited members do in fact draw lines, that change over time, but are defended at the time, sometimes aggressively. It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Yet the decisions change over time. etc...
  - feoren 3y ago
    > It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Those are different worlds. The latter is someone arguing in good faith, albeit wrongly and stubbornly, for something they believe is true. The former is spending money intentionally trying to discredit something because you're worried it's true (or people will find out it's true). One is honest and the other is not. That matters. The original comment accused the medical profession of spending "a lot of money" soliciting "hit pieces". Not some bad actors, but ("elements of", whatever that means) the medical profession as a whole. Not occasionally, not in a few notorious instances, but spending "a lot of money". Not being stubborn, not appealing to authority instead of evidence, but "hit pieces". That is bullshit disinformation and I called the poster on it. Nothing you said about our understanding of medicine changing over time, slower than it should have, involving more fights and stubbornness than it should, gets anywhere near the profession spending a lot of money on hit pieces.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      The error that you've made, and then run a mile with is right there in your first response when you say "oddly scare-quoted". You took that to be disparaging of medical professionals whereas in fact the work those quotes are doing in that sentence is precisely the opposite; to throw scorn on the idea that it was "medical professionals" who said that. I can see how you made that mistake. And maybe I should have been more forthright in saying that - hey maybe Gabor Mate (being the "some" who might say) has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Sadly, it shows rather clearly how we all impose beliefs we already have (especially about other people) on the words we read. Maybe where you could have jumped off that mistake train was where I said without stubbornness, that no, I have no evidence of such a thing and even if I did, I would not deem it credible. Nonetheless it has been said, whether you or I believe it or not, and if you want more details then you'll have to read Mate's book.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  No. And I would not even attempt to because I feel sure that anything I found (especially from a casual search on the internet) would not be credible. As I said there is mud-slinging on both sides. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that the original claim of "crackpot" theories that have been "debunked" is just more of the same opinionated, unscientific bunkum.
ants_everywhere 3y ago
I'm not sure what medical conspiracy theory you're on about, but it's trivially true that emotions have corresponding physiological signals. Electrical signals in the brain, hormonal signals to the rest of the body. The understanding of the physiological response to stress goes back at least to the 30s and 40s with the work of endocrinologist Hans Selye, before van der Kolk was even born. Unless I'm missing something, the article you linked seems to give an unproblematic summary of the basic science of the physiological response to trauma. What your link doesn't address are the points brought up by the links I posted, such as van der Kolk’s attempt to revive the disastrous repressed memory theory, his misunderstanding of fMRI studies, his misrepresentation of the research on mirror neurons, his use of the discredited lizard brain idea, etc.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  It seems we agree on all the important facts. You have an issue with van der Kolk, but I cannot comment on that, having never read "The Body Keeps the Score". Gabor Mate, who I have read, does mention numerous occurrences in his career as MD where people had told him that making links between trauma and, for example auto-immune diseases, was "career suicide". Not sure what you make of that.
  - ants_everywhere 3y ago
    Oh gotcha, sounds good. I am not familiar with Gabor Mate, but it depends on what his theory was. Wikipedia tells me he considers ADHD to be a coping mechanism. So for example if he had a theory that trauma can cause things like ADHD, then I'd say I don't think that particular theory seems to be supported by the evidence. But it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that two seemingly unrelated complicated things can be linked. It's possible that he got that advice because he felt he was onto a grand theory and the evidence wasn't there for it. Or whatever, who knows. It's possible there is something to say about anxiety/cortisol/stress, neurodivergence, gut micro-biomes, and some autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes. There are studies on all of this stuff, but it's all in early stages, we don't know if the statistical effects are even real. And we certainly have no reason to conclude that one set of effects would cause the other.

sonofhans 3y ago

I’ve read your sources and they don’t say what you claim. Your first source says: “* Memories of trauma are seldom, if ever, truly forgotten. * Memories of trauma are often vivid, but they are not immutable (memory does not operate like a videotape machine). * Not thinking about a trauma for a long time is not the same as being unable to remember it.” None of that meaningfully contradicts “The Body Keeps the Score.” Your second source’s strongest criticism seems to be of this sort: “When we collapse or disengage in a dangerous situation, van der Kolk says, we’ve been taken over by the dorsal vagal complex, “an evolutionarily ancient part of the parasympathetic nervous system.” Except the dorsal vagal complex hasn’t actually been proved to exist in humans.” Again, that doesn’t contradict anything important in “The Body Keeps the Score.”

ants_everywhere 3y ago
> None of that meaningfully contradicts “The Body Keeps the Score.” I haven't read it, that's why I asked it as a question. What I've heard about the book is that it's not supported by the science. At least in the popular press I've seen positive coverage of the book claim that van der Kolk argues your mind can forget trauma and you can work from data from your body to recover information about forgotten trauma. For example, this school of life video [0] at t=284. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like perhaps you're saying that's not a core part of the book. If so, then I defer to you since I haven't read it. But from the limited press I've seen, that appears to be what many people take away from it. > I’ve read your sources and they don’t say what you claim Hmm, okay, but I see them as being far more critical. The second article talks in general about how he helps himself to discredited or unsupported theories, or in some cases research that he just doesn't seem to understand. The first one talks about how his theory that the brain can forget trauma that is encoded in the body as the same "mistaken reasoning" that caused "arguably the most serious catastrophe to strike the mental health field since the lobotomy era." I don't know of any studies that evaluate the various interventions he suggests. Some of it I think is well studied, some seems more experimental. Some related ideas, such as shame or guilt being encoded in sunken body posture etc are old and well known and don't seem to be related to trauma in particular, at least not trauma as studied by psychologists. My guess is that the book, like many pop psych books, may be a mixed bag and that lots of people see the overall work as a net benefit even if some of the psych community is concerned about inaccurate representation of the results and the revival of the old memory wars. https://youtu.be/QSCXyYuT2rE?t=284 https://youtu.be/QSCXyYuT2rE?t=284

dimal 3y ago

I don’t think 100% of the claims will hold up over time, but I would not call it crackpot or discredited, by a long shot. Simply acknowledging that childhood trauma has some consistent effects and being 60% right. would be doing better than the American Psychiatric Association, which still hasn’t even added CPTSD to the DSM. They seem intent on pathologizing just about every type of behavior imaginable, but they don’t seem to think childhood trauma is very relevant to mental health.

voisin 3y ago
> Simply acknowledging that childhood trauma has some consistent effects and being 60% right The book is far from limited to childhood trauma. It is any event that leads to overreaction of the sympathetic nervous system causing increased cortisol downstream that the body struggles to adapt to. This can be consistent micro-stressors or singular major events. No requirement for them to have happened in childhood.