3 ms·

A lot of these ideas if taken literally would harm the person in the center. There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverg

A lot of these ideas if taken literally would harm the person in the center. There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients. The history starts of course with Freud, but another prominent example was the theory of recovered memories in the late 1900s. In this case, the ring theory was developed out of hurt because the first author felt hurt by something a colleague said. That's not generally a good basis for a theory of how to deal with something as complicated as trauma. Even the basic idea of a "center" is suspect. In many cases, a traumatic event is an event that affects multiple people who must interact. The classic example of trauma is warfare. Families go through trauma. Even when there isn't a common trauma, many conversations happen between individuals who have separate but comparable traumas. You don't want to get into a frame of mind where you have to judge and compare people's trauma to determine what they can and can't say. On top of that there is a lot of research on kvetching and whether it's good for patients. In most cases I'm aware of, it's harmful to them. Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), advocate the opposite of what this article is advocating. CBT says that the patient does best when they talk back to their own distorted thoughts. That means not thinking of yourself as the center of some universe, and not thinking of yourself as a "why me" victim that is targeted by some cosmic force. This article is saying diametrically the opposite; it says you should reinforce people's distorted thoughts. Of course, you have to be kind and gentle to someone when they're having a hard time. But that kindness can take a lot of forms, and this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach.

nine_k 2y ago
This is fair. But I think that instead of debunking this approach, it just limits its applicability. (1) Keep the "kvetching order" for the (relatively) short time when the impact of the trauma is still very strong and hasn't been processed by the person in the center. (2) Do not allow two systems of kvetching rings clash. Yes, this includes both warfare, hopefully far from most people here, and, say, divorces. This is not a universal solution. Taken too literally, or too long-term, it will harm the person(s) in the center it's intended to protect. Yes, sometimes the only way out of pain is through, "no pain, no gain". But this is a good rule-of-thumb kind of solution that helps limit the pain inflicted to the people definitely more hurt than you, without any significant gain. Maybe a traumatized person, for their long-term benefit. needs to have a difficult conversation that would be extra painful due to the trauma. But there's no reason to inflict pain by small talk and trivial daily iissues.
maxerickson 2y ago
The article proposes a heuristic for people to use when offering support to those close to them. You are analyzing it as if it is a treatment plan for the person receiving support. It doesn't say that it's good for someone in the hospital to spend all of their time complaining about their situation, it says that their co-worker who is visiting to be supportive probably shouldn't bring up how it was hard for them to do it.
- cipehr 2y ago
  I understand your point but the article quite literally says: “Here are the rules. The person in the center ring can say anything she wants to anyone, anywhere.” I think GP has valid points about this “rules” impact.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    I don't think it's meant as literal rules. It's a rhetorical device. Basically everything in there has exceptions: sometimes the compassionate thing to do would be to give someone in an inner ring advice. Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things. Obviously it's not okay for the person in the middle to say "anything", either. But, it's a really worthwhile thing to consider. Is the person you're going to talk to closer to the trauma than you? If so, would what you're saying be better to say to someone further away, instead?
    - dsign 2y ago
      > Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things. Indeed. But if I were in some acute treatment in USA, in the center ring, I probably feel an unrestrained urge to ask for financial advice. "Dear, can the kids be indented into slavery if I die without paying the bills? Yes? Because I signed that form? Oh...somebody should have given me some advice..."
  - eyelidlessness 2y ago
    It says “can”. It doesn’t say should, or advise on what’s best for the person at the “center” to do. In fact that’s the whole point: it is advice meant for people who are, in their own analysis, not at the center of whatever trauma is being addressed.
sfink 2y ago
Well, actually, your entire comment is a giant "well, actually" comment. > this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach. No, it really isn't. It's talking about what not to do. As it says in the title. It's not instructing anyone to dump. Your analysis of the proper motivations for creating a robust theory of behavior just isn't relevant here, in a discussion of that theory. It's kind of an example of going the wrong direction in a related sort of ring. At least the way I read it, you seemed to be talking about your personal disapproval, which isn't very relevant to other readers of the article. At least not by itself.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  I wasn't talking about motivations for creating a theory, I was talking about the process of creating a true theory. You can try to turn your pain into art, but it doesn't justify a theory. The theory has to be tested, and in this case it contradicts a lot of what is known about how to talk to people who have experienced trauma. A lot of people talk to me about their trauma, and in many cases it's stuff they haven't talked to others in their life about. I think it's an important topic. One thing I've noticed is people I'm close to do much worse when they read a lot of social media from trauma influencers. Most of it seems innocuous or even helpful and a lot of it is similar in tone to this essay. But what happens is the trauma-related content that rises to the top of the algorithmic leader board is the content that people engage with more. And that tends to be content that sinks people down deeper into the pain so that they seek out more trauma content to feel better. And so on in a recursive loop. A lot of the content is about the value of venting, a hierarchical (and I would argue somewhat authoritarian) approach to supporting people who have been through trauma. There's often a surprisingly judgmental tone toward people who don't do the right thing to support people, etc.
fsckboy 2y ago
>There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients...Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) sorry, but Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is clinical psychology. if a psychologist sees patients, that is clinical.
strken 2y ago
I am surprised that CBT and psychotherapy are even mentioned here. Grief at a death or upset at an injured family member are not dysfunctional emotions to be managed away and reconceptualised while the event is still happening. And what are you going to do if not "reinforce people's distorted thoughts"? Get into a screaming match with them about how they're not a victim and they're not being targeted by the universe? Again, this is advice for how to behave during an unfolding crisis, in which unpacking the injured party's belief system is less important than helping them with the paperwork and making sure they get some sleep and some of those hospital sandwiches they keep in the fridge at the nurses' station.

nine_k 2y ago

This is fair. But I think that instead of debunking this approach, it just limits its applicability. (1) Keep the "kvetching order" for the (relatively) short time when the impact of the trauma is still very strong and hasn't been processed by the person in the center. (2) Do not allow two systems of kvetching rings clash. Yes, this includes both warfare, hopefully far from most people here, and, say, divorces. This is not a universal solution. Taken too literally, or too long-term, it will harm the person(s) in the center it's intended to protect. Yes, sometimes the only way out of pain is through, "no pain, no gain". But this is a good rule-of-thumb kind of solution that helps limit the pain inflicted to the people definitely more hurt than you, without any significant gain. Maybe a traumatized person, for their long-term benefit. needs to have a difficult conversation that would be extra painful due to the trauma. But there's no reason to inflict pain by small talk and trivial daily iissues.

maxerickson 2y ago

The article proposes a heuristic for people to use when offering support to those close to them. You are analyzing it as if it is a treatment plan for the person receiving support. It doesn't say that it's good for someone in the hospital to spend all of their time complaining about their situation, it says that their co-worker who is visiting to be supportive probably shouldn't bring up how it was hard for them to do it.

cipehr 2y ago
I understand your point but the article quite literally says: “Here are the rules. The person in the center ring can say anything she wants to anyone, anywhere.” I think GP has valid points about this “rules” impact.
- mlyle 2y ago
  I don't think it's meant as literal rules. It's a rhetorical device. Basically everything in there has exceptions: sometimes the compassionate thing to do would be to give someone in an inner ring advice. Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things. Obviously it's not okay for the person in the middle to say "anything", either. But, it's a really worthwhile thing to consider. Is the person you're going to talk to closer to the trauma than you? If so, would what you're saying be better to say to someone further away, instead?
  - dsign 2y ago
    > Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things. Indeed. But if I were in some acute treatment in USA, in the center ring, I probably feel an unrestrained urge to ask for financial advice. "Dear, can the kids be indented into slavery if I die without paying the bills? Yes? Because I signed that form? Oh...somebody should have given me some advice..."
- eyelidlessness 2y ago
  It says “can”. It doesn’t say should, or advise on what’s best for the person at the “center” to do. In fact that’s the whole point: it is advice meant for people who are, in their own analysis, not at the center of whatever trauma is being addressed.

sfink 2y ago

Well, actually, your entire comment is a giant "well, actually" comment. > this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach. No, it really isn't. It's talking about what not to do. As it says in the title. It's not instructing anyone to dump. Your analysis of the proper motivations for creating a robust theory of behavior just isn't relevant here, in a discussion of that theory. It's kind of an example of going the wrong direction in a related sort of ring. At least the way I read it, you seemed to be talking about your personal disapproval, which isn't very relevant to other readers of the article. At least not by itself.

ants_everywhere 2y ago
I wasn't talking about motivations for creating a theory, I was talking about the process of creating a true theory. You can try to turn your pain into art, but it doesn't justify a theory. The theory has to be tested, and in this case it contradicts a lot of what is known about how to talk to people who have experienced trauma. A lot of people talk to me about their trauma, and in many cases it's stuff they haven't talked to others in their life about. I think it's an important topic. One thing I've noticed is people I'm close to do much worse when they read a lot of social media from trauma influencers. Most of it seems innocuous or even helpful and a lot of it is similar in tone to this essay. But what happens is the trauma-related content that rises to the top of the algorithmic leader board is the content that people engage with more. And that tends to be content that sinks people down deeper into the pain so that they seek out more trauma content to feel better. And so on in a recursive loop. A lot of the content is about the value of venting, a hierarchical (and I would argue somewhat authoritarian) approach to supporting people who have been through trauma. There's often a surprisingly judgmental tone toward people who don't do the right thing to support people, etc.

fsckboy 2y ago

>There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients...Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) sorry, but Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is clinical psychology. if a psychologist sees patients, that is clinical.

strken 2y ago

I am surprised that CBT and psychotherapy are even mentioned here. Grief at a death or upset at an injured family member are not dysfunctional emotions to be managed away and reconceptualised while the event is still happening. And what are you going to do if not "reinforce people's distorted thoughts"? Get into a screaming match with them about how they're not a victim and they're not being targeted by the universe? Again, this is advice for how to behave during an unfolding crisis, in which unpacking the injured party's belief system is less important than helping them with the paperwork and making sure they get some sleep and some of those hospital sandwiches they keep in the fridge at the nurses' station.