4 ms·

This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less com

This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less common.

BurningFrog 2y ago
I always wonder if it occurred more, or, in a modern society, was recorded more. Just thinking aloud.
- munificent 2y ago
  I think it's probably both. I think the negative consequences of being in a war increased significantly after the invention of artillery, but also psychological stuff was under-reported the farther you go back in time.
joegibbs 2y ago
That's interesting that at the time, in WW1, it was assumed to be a physical injury to the brain caused by the shockwave of exploding artillery shells (hence the name). A few years later a consensus evolved that it's a psychological problem caused by the stress of combat, which was the prevailing opinion for about 100 years. And now it's looking like it might actually be a physical injury caused by shockwave damage to the brain.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Shell shock was considered related to neurasthenia (weak nerves) which is the 18th century name for ME/CFS. TBI, ME/CFS and PTSD are highly correlated for what I believe are the same genetic predisposition plus an environmental trigger.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    ME/CFS can also be triggered by viruses. Epstein-Barr virus and SARS-CoV-2 both are suspected triggers.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      And the huge population movements, cramming exhausted people together in dense and often unsanitary conditions, characteristic of 20th century warfare are ideal conditions for.. guess what?
- dralley 2y ago
  Or both.
- seventytwo 2y ago
  It’s not either/or. The psychological shit is real, but the physical damage to the brain is real also. Both things are true.
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Physical damage to the brain can easily cause phycological problem. It wouldn't make psychological problems any less real, merely help to prevent them better.
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    A lot of the medication for psychological issues is aimed at altering the bio chemistry in the brain to mitigate physical problems. The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined. It's also true that certain disorders (e.g. psychosis) actually cause brain damage when left unchecked. This technically is not a single thing but more like a group of disorders with widely varying symptoms. My understanding is that a lot of PTSD complaints overlap in terms of symptoms and are probably related. Or that some PTSD patients actually become psychotic. So not surprising to see some brain damage in navy seals. Of course the question is what comes first, the brain damage or the ptsd. And whether something can be done before brain damage happens in terms of medication or therapy.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined Psychological doesn't mean "imagined", just means "in the realm of thought". Your thinking is not "imagined", nor is the impact of decisions, ruminating, etc to you.
    - adrianN 2y ago
      The distinction between physical and psychological problems just betrays our abysmal understanding of how the brain works.
      - brinefine 2y ago
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Well the good thing they went forward back then and invented the modern helmet to protect people in trenches from overhead explosions. And incredibly it seems that the Adrian helmet still outperforms modern helmet designs in the blast protection quality. [1] It can't stop a bullet sure, but I suspect that chances of being hit by an overhead blast are higher than that a of a headshot in a typical warfare scenario. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228802 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - manuel_w 2y ago
    FYI, also modern helmets are not designed to stop bullets but rather to protect from shrapnel and hand grenades. Stopping a bullet would mean breaking the wearers neck. (The kinetic energy needs to go somewhere after all.)
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Deflecting it could maybe work though.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      Older steel helmets don't but modern IIIA-class helmets (e.g. ECH) do. Kinetic energy is not an unsolvable problem, energy can be dissipated. The momentum is in fact the problem that can't be really worked-around (except spreading it over longer period of time) but the momentum of a bullet is low. UPD replaced "impulse" with "momentum", lost in translation
      - sobriquet9 2y ago
        Level IIIA resists penetration from .357 SIG, 9 mm, and .44 magnum. Those are handgun rounds. It may stop some intermediate rounds if you’re lucky, but certainly not full power rifle rounds. Helmets cannot deform as much as vests before seriously injuring the wearer, limiting their capacity to dissipate kinetic energy. And if you make them too rigid, concussion becomes a problem.
    - 2y ago
- baxtr 2y ago
  Maybe that’s because 100 years ago they still remembered the old wars and thus could compare.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Daub 2y ago
I had a friend who had tinnitus from repeated exposure to explosions in the army. To combat his tinnitus he developed the habit of talking incessantly and at home would always have music playing. Sounds kinda funny but I could tell that it was having a significantly negative impact on his life.
flourpower471 2y ago
However also confounded with the rise very different forms of warfare. Prior to ww1 there were limited periods where you would live on edge - if you have to march armies into position and have pitched battles (e.g. Waterloo) the soldiers have some warning and mental preparation time. WW1 saw the start of widespread normality of living in trenches and never knowing when the artillery shell might kill you.
webninja 2y ago
See the first commentator’s George Carlin video on Euphemisms. None of his commentators mention it (yet) but it’s the best part of his comment IMO. I’ll summarize the video’s transcripts here partially. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock. That was 70 years ago. In WW2, a generation later, it was called Battle Fatigue. In the War in Korea in 1950, it was called Operational Exhaustion. In the War in Vietnam and because of that war, it has been called Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder. The NYT Article basically concludes that PTSD has been Shell Shock all along. Progress has been hampered by Euphamisms. If the combat veterans were diagnosed with Shell Shock, we might have a solution or remedy for it 70 years later. This problem is pretty bad. U.S. soldiers are almost 9x more likely to die by suicide than by combat, according to a Pentagon internal study ending in 2019. According to data published by the CDC, if you’re a white male (civilian/military/all) the main thing you have to do to live to see your 44th birthday is not die by suicide. The data says that’s a lot harder than it sounds as it’s the second leading cause of death in all age brackets up to age 44. A staggering 70% of all suicides are by white males. What societal factors are disproportionately affecting them? Maybe put out an ad campaign that says “Suicide is selfish, misandrist, and racist.” Although that doesn’t treat the underlying issue(s) and causational factors. It’s similar to when Foxconn added nets to the upper floors of their iPhone factory.

This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less common.

BurningFrog 2y ago

I always wonder if it occurred more, or, in a modern society, was recorded more. Just thinking aloud.

munificent 2y ago
I think it's probably both. I think the negative consequences of being in a war increased significantly after the invention of artillery, but also psychological stuff was under-reported the farther you go back in time.

joegibbs 2y ago

That's interesting that at the time, in WW1, it was assumed to be a physical injury to the brain caused by the shockwave of exploding artillery shells (hence the name). A few years later a consensus evolved that it's a psychological problem caused by the stress of combat, which was the prevailing opinion for about 100 years. And now it's looking like it might actually be a physical injury caused by shockwave damage to the brain.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Shell shock was considered related to neurasthenia (weak nerves) which is the 18th century name for ME/CFS. TBI, ME/CFS and PTSD are highly correlated for what I believe are the same genetic predisposition plus an environmental trigger.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  ME/CFS can also be triggered by viruses. Epstein-Barr virus and SARS-CoV-2 both are suspected triggers.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    And the huge population movements, cramming exhausted people together in dense and often unsanitary conditions, characteristic of 20th century warfare are ideal conditions for.. guess what?
dralley 2y ago
Or both.
seventytwo 2y ago
It’s not either/or. The psychological shit is real, but the physical damage to the brain is real also. Both things are true.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Physical damage to the brain can easily cause phycological problem. It wouldn't make psychological problems any less real, merely help to prevent them better.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  A lot of the medication for psychological issues is aimed at altering the bio chemistry in the brain to mitigate physical problems. The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined. It's also true that certain disorders (e.g. psychosis) actually cause brain damage when left unchecked. This technically is not a single thing but more like a group of disorders with widely varying symptoms. My understanding is that a lot of PTSD complaints overlap in terms of symptoms and are probably related. Or that some PTSD patients actually become psychotic. So not surprising to see some brain damage in navy seals. Of course the question is what comes first, the brain damage or the ptsd. And whether something can be done before brain damage happens in terms of medication or therapy.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >The reason that stuff works is because the issues are physical and not imagined Psychological doesn't mean "imagined", just means "in the realm of thought". Your thinking is not "imagined", nor is the impact of decisions, ruminating, etc to you.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    The distinction between physical and psychological problems just betrays our abysmal understanding of how the brain works.
    - brinefine 2y ago
alexey-salmin 2y ago
Well the good thing they went forward back then and invented the modern helmet to protect people in trenches from overhead explosions. And incredibly it seems that the Adrian helmet still outperforms modern helmet designs in the blast protection quality. [1] It can't stop a bullet sure, but I suspect that chances of being hit by an overhead blast are higher than that a of a headshot in a typical warfare scenario. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228802 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- manuel_w 2y ago
  FYI, also modern helmets are not designed to stop bullets but rather to protect from shrapnel and hand grenades. Stopping a bullet would mean breaking the wearers neck. (The kinetic energy needs to go somewhere after all.)
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Deflecting it could maybe work though.
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Older steel helmets don't but modern IIIA-class helmets (e.g. ECH) do. Kinetic energy is not an unsolvable problem, energy can be dissipated. The momentum is in fact the problem that can't be really worked-around (except spreading it over longer period of time) but the momentum of a bullet is low. UPD replaced "impulse" with "momentum", lost in translation
    - sobriquet9 2y ago
      Level IIIA resists penetration from .357 SIG, 9 mm, and .44 magnum. Those are handgun rounds. It may stop some intermediate rounds if you’re lucky, but certainly not full power rifle rounds. Helmets cannot deform as much as vests before seriously injuring the wearer, limiting their capacity to dissipate kinetic energy. And if you make them too rigid, concussion becomes a problem.
  - 2y ago
baxtr 2y ago
Maybe that’s because 100 years ago they still remembered the old wars and thus could compare.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Daub 2y ago

I had a friend who had tinnitus from repeated exposure to explosions in the army. To combat his tinnitus he developed the habit of talking incessantly and at home would always have music playing. Sounds kinda funny but I could tell that it was having a significantly negative impact on his life.

flourpower471 2y ago

However also confounded with the rise very different forms of warfare. Prior to ww1 there were limited periods where you would live on edge - if you have to march armies into position and have pitched battles (e.g. Waterloo) the soldiers have some warning and mental preparation time. WW1 saw the start of widespread normality of living in trenches and never knowing when the artillery shell might kill you.

webninja 2y ago

See the first commentator’s George Carlin video on Euphemisms. None of his commentators mention it (yet) but it’s the best part of his comment IMO. I’ll summarize the video’s transcripts here partially. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock. That was 70 years ago. In WW2, a generation later, it was called Battle Fatigue. In the War in Korea in 1950, it was called Operational Exhaustion. In the War in Vietnam and because of that war, it has been called Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder. The NYT Article basically concludes that PTSD has been Shell Shock all along. Progress has been hampered by Euphamisms. If the combat veterans were diagnosed with Shell Shock, we might have a solution or remedy for it 70 years later. This problem is pretty bad. U.S. soldiers are almost 9x more likely to die by suicide than by combat, according to a Pentagon internal study ending in 2019. According to data published by the CDC, if you’re a white male (civilian/military/all) the main thing you have to do to live to see your 44th birthday is not die by suicide. The data says that’s a lot harder than it sounds as it’s the second leading cause of death in all age brackets up to age 44. A staggering 70% of all suicides are by white males. What societal factors are disproportionately affecting them? Maybe put out an ad campaign that says “Suicide is selfish, misandrist, and racist.” Although that doesn’t treat the underlying issue(s) and causational factors. It’s similar to when Foxconn added nets to the upper floors of their iPhone factory.