6 ms·

> History shows people are also very resilient at moving on from trauma. That's the "classical" mindset that modern empirical studies are refuting. Actually,

• taeric 1y ago
  On this, then, I would generally have a hard time agreeing. I'd be comfortable with the idea that not everyone is very resilient. I'd expect that. If the claim, then, is that there is an absurdly high variance there, I'd agree. But I'm also growingly sympathetic to the idea that telling people they are, in fact, traumatized, is not healthy. People are, as a rule, susceptible to what they are told. Especially from authority.
  • Schmerika 1y ago
    > People are, as a rule, susceptible to what they are told. Research shows that suggestibility is actually moderately correlated with trauma.
    • Jensson 1y ago
      If so then its true, telling traumatized people that they are traumatized makes it worse for them.
      • paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Correlation is ~not~ [actually] causation?
        • Xelbair 1y ago
          how do you determine causation from correlation in experiment where you are unable to separate all the factors? you can't. not agreeing with one side or other - because i frankly don't know enough about it to form an opinion, but using "correlation != causation" is basically a discussion stopper.
          • paulryanrogers 1y ago
            My point is their claim assumes causation despite the fact that we may never be able to prove it. I.e. a strong claim with no evidence besides a correlation.
            • Jensson 1y ago
              Nobody suggested there was a causation here as that doesn't matter for what was talked about.
        • Jensson 1y ago
          Doesn't matter, suggestibility was correlated with trauma, which means they are likely to be suggestible to becoming miserable if you tell them they are.
          • Retric 1y ago
            That requires someone to tell them they are miserable rather than observing them to be miserable. There’s a lot of historic terms to describe people suffering from traumatic experiences like shell shocked (WWI), soldier’s hart (US civil war), lost/bewildered (US Revolutionary War), etc going back literally thousands of years.
            • Jensson 1y ago
              No it doesn't, I didn't say the source of their misery was people telling them that they are, but it could make it worse. Often the best cure is for your friends and family to treat you just like normal, except maybe demand a bit less and give space.
              • Retric 1y ago
                That’s a common response by friends and family but it’s simply not the best cure. Often it makes things worse and can lead to suicide through feelings of alienation.
              • motorest 1y ago
                > No it doesn't, I didn't say the source of their misery was people telling them that they are, but it could make it worse. It sounds like you're advocating for repressing traumatic experiences hoping to not cause inconveniences.
                • deleted 1y ago
                  [deleted]
            • strken 1y ago
              You need to separate physical trauma from psychological trauma. There's no debate that getting hit in the head or having explosives go off nearby can cause physical brain damage. That's empirically proven (at least in animal models) and so obvious that it's hard to argue against. What I'm unclear on is the details: is physical trauma a necessary factor in shell shock as it was understood a century or more ago? Is that shell shock the same thing as the combat stress reaction and/or post-traumatic stress disorder? Is PTSD an amalgamation of two different things that aren't the same? To what extent does suggestion worsen the physical vs psychological sides of PTSD? Is suggestion the only thing that causes shell shock, the CSR, and/or PTSD in the absence of physical damage? Etc.
      • sznio 1y ago
        No it doesn't. In my case, that reassurance finally gave me a foundation to work on. I finally knew that it wasn't my fault. I understood thst I didn't deserve what happened. I didn't need to chastise myself for breaking down during flashbacks. For the first time in my life my emotions got a concrete basis of "Yes, that is trauma. It's fucked up. You can work on it." and not "Why are you still worrying about stuff from 20 years ago" or "Well that happens to everyone, and they don't break down like you".
  • homefree 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • plorg 1y ago
      I would take any scientific claims touted on HN with a grain of salt - there are plenty claims associated with overlapping orthodoxies and heterodoxies being presented all the time.
    • nathan_compton 1y ago
      This is such a weird thing to simply baldly assert.
    • taurath 1y ago
      I’d posit that the people on hacker news are often very far away from even a yeoman understanding of social sciences, except in a few profitable niches like attention, personalization and motivation.
    • throwaway173738 1y ago
      Why does it have to be a progressive orthodoxy? Can’t it just be an orthodoxy?
      • homefree 1y ago
        Because that’s the group that’s captured it
    • array_key_first 1y ago
      A lot of people are simply in denial about the world we live in. They hold strong beliefs that are based on just their own intuition, and when social sciences challenge that, they double down. And then, they refuse to listen to the actual people said topic is about. A LOT of people think they have it all figured out about homosexuals and transgender people... having never talked and listened to either. The same things act different in different circumstances.
      • 1y ago
  • anon373839 1y ago
    > But I'm also growingly sympathetic to the idea that telling people they are, in fact, traumatized, is not healthy If the message is, "you are traumatized and therefore permanently damaged", you're right - that's not healthy and also not true. But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury. I think this a pretty critical distinction that rarely gets addressed in these kinds of discussions.
    • taeric 1y ago
      Agreed.
    • crazygringo 1y ago
      This 1000x. Discovering you have trauma is a kind of diagnosis, so now you can figure out the kind of professional help you need. I don't think there's really an epidemic of trauma hypochondriacs. It's not an excuse to play victim or anything. It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help.
      • greygoo222 1y ago
        > It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help. There is no evidence for this, and it is exactly the harmful mindset being criticized. Developing PTSD from traumatic events is the exception, not the rule. The majority of people do get better on their own.
        • taurath 1y ago
          This is so frustrating because I agree with the beginning, but the statement you make after I find to be also misleading if not technically true.
        • crazygringo 1y ago
          No, you seem to be confused about the definition of trauma. This is important. By definition, people who undergo traumatic events do not generally get better on their own. If they get over it easily, it's not classified as trauma. Trauma is not defined by the event itself, but by the person's reaction to it. When you say the majority of people overcome trauma on their own, that is by definition false. If you have a bad reaction to an event but it goes away within a week or too, it's classified as an acute stress reaction. Not trauma.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• jay_kyburz 1y ago
  No expert, and fully expect to be flamed, but we are now living in a society that has discouraged "sucking it up" or "burying your emotions" for 30 years. It not really possible to study, at macro level, the impact of that thinking. A lot of people just want to be a victim. They want to be special. They want sympathy.
  • itsnowandnever 1y ago
    who has discouraged "sucking it up"? what systemic policies have changed to accommodate this? as far as I can tell, someone can explain how they're the victim to anyone and everyone they come across and no one will care. I can't see how anyone emotionally or materially benefits from saying they're a victim. they may want sympathy but they will not get it. that said, I don't live in a coastal city where there might be more accommodations for such things. where I live, people are generally on their own to find the means to survive. but, in line with the theme of the post, I'm fairly certain people here have a lower life expectancy and generally lower health than people in places where there is a more robust support network. in which case, the body must, in fact, keep the score.
    • Jensson 1y ago
      > as far as I can tell, someone can explain how they're the victim to anyone and everyone they come across and no one will care. I can't see how anyone emotionally or materially benefits from saying they're a victim. they may want sympathy but they will not get it. This is true for a man, not true for a woman. Women in general get a lot of sympathy and things for saying they are a victim. Men just benefit from hiding it as you say though, there is no reason for men to show this.
    • ryan_lane 1y ago
      This is part of the "persecution of conservatives", where they "can't say a thing anymore". They obviously can, and still do, but feel their voices are being suppressed. The reality is that their opinion isn't popular anymore, and they're used to being listened to unconditionally, and can't stand that people don't agree with them anymore. The annoying thing here is that it's simply not true, especially in regards to men. It's still the norm to be told to suck it up, or you're not a real man. It's toxic masculinity, and it's obvious that's taken on a massive rise in popularity, thanks to folks like Joe Rogan and the like.
• jaybrendansmith 1y ago
  "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" - maybe sometimes if you're an adult. But not childhood trauma...that makes you weaker almost every time, and you take that weakness with you and spread it around.
  • taeric 1y ago
    I didn't say that, though? Some things that don't kill you can, obviously, make you really really weak. Isn't hard to find examples on that front. Polio is the poster case. But thinking kids are made weaker from any and all trauma is just reductive to the point of not useful. I suspect we would largely align on the idea that growth is the important part. We would also largely agree that trauma is real. Question is how do you combine those ideas?
    • OvbiousError 1y ago
      From what I've seen in my direct circle, childhood trauma leaves deep deep traces, and not in a good way. The idea that childhood trauma encourages growth to me sounds like pull yourself up by your bootstraps kind of rhetoric.
      • taeric 1y ago
        And where did I say that? You seem to be purposely misreading my posts. I said growth is the important part. If you are focusing people on identifying themselves as traumatized, you are doing it wrong. You want to focus them on how to grow. Be that be letting go, coming to terms, whatever. Really depends on the trauma.
      • throwaway173738 1y ago
        It’s attitudinal. Some people just don’t want to stay stuck in their childhood forever because there are too many things they want in life. Is it better to just carry your childhood around and relive it all the time? Some of that is probably fine but do it to the exclusion of your present moments and it’s probably maladaptive.
• anon373839 1y ago
  I think you're both right, but you're talking about different things. People (as in mankind, the human species) do have the ability to bounce back from severely traumatic circumstances. But people (as in most individuals) don't often have the kind of coping skills that would let them tap into this capability. Fortunately, they can be learned and applied even in adulthood. To heal trauma, you have to actually feel your feelings, without getting sucked into them. If you continually repress/avoid/try to control them, you won't get better. If you wallow in them, you also won't get better. I think this latter point is what causes some people to think that it's harmful to tell people that they are trauma victims, because they might develop a victim mindset. But people who subscribe to this view often go to the opposite extreme and try to deny that trauma exists, which is just as harmful (and useless).
  • taurath 1y ago
    If you listen to the people who have bounced back - they’ll not tell you that their being traumatized is good. The truth is there is very little support for survivors, and a hell of a lot of support for perpetrators, who often abuse from a position of safety and authority. Of course very few are publicly against survivors, but an entire political structure is arrayed to cast doubt on any accusation, especially if a traumatized person acts traumatized, or the powerful person acts cool and rational.
    • XorNot 1y ago
      Also just survivors bias. People either survive or they don't. Plenty of lethal gun cleaning accidents used to happen. Still do.
  • jalapenos 1y ago
    Indeed, in the end it comes down to the skill of the therapist. It's unfortunate both that more people don't succeed in getting the therapy they need. A skilled therapist can make an absolutely transformative difference, but only if they decide to find them.
• wisty 1y ago
  OTOH the nocevo effect is real. If you tell prople guten intolerance is a thing, you will cause some people will feel real pain. https://theconversation.com/your-gluten-sensitivity-might-be-something-else-entirely-new-study-shows-267098 https://theconversation.com/your-gluten-sensitivity-might-be... If you tell people trauma is probably no big deal in most cases but to seek help in the unlikely event that it does cause more issues then maybe that's better?
  • taeric 1y ago
    Tinnitus is another good example for this idea. Bringing awareness to it makes it worse.
• wisty 1y ago
  OTOH the nocebo effect is real. If you tell people gluten intolerance is a thing, you will cause some people will feel real pain. https://theconversation.com/your-gluten-sensitivity-might-be-something-else-entirely-new-study-shows-267098 https://theconversation.com/your-gluten-sensitivity-might-be... And when it comes to stuff that's all in your head anyway, what's the difference between a real disorder and a psychogenic one? If you tell people trauma is probably no big deal in most cases but to seek help in the unlikely event that it does cause more issues then maybe that's better? It's like they say on the legal disclaimer on Tylenol in Australia - if pain persists see a doctor. And while I'm couching my words a lot because I don't want to play fake internet doctor, the other side of the argument is also likely not too competent medical opinion.