4 ms·

The problem with the trauma model is that it would explain the outcomes even if it as false, as almost everyone will have had a traumatic or adverse experience

The problem with the trauma model is that it would explain the outcomes even if it as false, as almost everyone will have had a traumatic or adverse experience at some point in their lives, and anyone who hasn't has been sheltered to a point that is in itself traumatic. Telling someone that past trauma is the cause of their problem, and going through some ritual to find and process it will in some sense heal them, is a textbook example of suggestion. We know this can make people feel better as long as they buy into it, crux being it also works if we say unrestful ancestral spirits or unbalanced humors are at fault.

spwa4 1y ago
The problem with the trauma model is that only the trauma is looked at. NOT the environment that caused it. Because nearly every trauma ... happens at school, and it is the responsibility of teachers and more generally the government. None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this, and certainly not considering that the problem is always specific individuals, essentially always teachers. (because if it's other kids, that too is legally and practically the responsibility of teachers, and it's always specific teachers that don't have a good grip on what happens in class or on the playground) And the problem is not even necessarily that these people are responsible, but that they won't stop and the trauma will repeat and repeat and repeat again and again, until the kids either run away or use violence to resolve it. Then, of course, you punish the kids harshly for doing that, and find extremely scary sounding names for what the kids did. Anti-social behavior. Theft. No conscience. Psychopaths. Oh but teachers bullying kids in class, that is not psychopathy. Even teachers failing to prevent bullies attacking other kids on purpose, that is not anti-social behavior. Teachers asking kids to become drug dealers, that is NOT a sign of no conscience. School, police and government cooperating to hide that this happens is not illegal or wrong or any of those things and certainly they can't be expected to fix such problems, and certainly the state can't be expected to pay for the consequences the way they demand of everyone else. ONLY the kids' behavior is antisocial. Yesterday on Netflix I watched "I am a killer", and they showed that a particular woman was proud of what she's done. Of course there was a slight gap in what the police and judge believed had happened. You see, this kid was abandoned by the government (parents kept her home, and didn't even give her enough food. The government visited every once every 8 months and of course child services help was far worse than being left at home). She fixed this situation ... by drug running, and that, she kept doing for 20 years. Now after 15 years she was in the same house where a drug-related murder happened, and "cooperated" with the murder. By then, she had kids, who where in the house and people she could not physically beat were very angry, so she did not intervene. She called the police on the fight the weeks before. They never showed up. The police accusation of her "cooperation" with the murder is 90% that she never called authorities, and didn't risk herself or her kids. She then pointed out that it isn't even true that she didn't intervene, she had called the authorities hundreds of times over 20 years, including not long before the murder about the very same fight, but her expectations of help ... shall we say "evolved" over those hundreds of times she asked for help. When she called the week before, nobody responded. She then also helped hide the body, expecting that the police would punish her if they found out. Now of course according to the police the cause of such actions are psychopathy, antisocial behavior, not having a conscience, being evil, ... and so on. The cause of the situation is NOT, and shall NEVER be considered to be that she had an expectation that even if the police reacted, they would either do nothing, or punish her. And this sort of thinking, no matter how rational, shall not even be mentioned in the case at any point, no matter how often she repeats it. It shall ESPECIALLY not be mentioned that this is in fact exactly what happened. You see, she was right. The police eventually of course intervened (when the guy was 2 months dead, and it wasn't even theoretically possible to help anyone anymore, by the way) ... and punished her. But of course the state, the non-reaction of everyone whose only job it is to prevent this sort of situation from building to this point, is just totally innocent. The fact that they did not just fail ... but purposefully abandoned her, and especially not that such behavior could be considered to make her reaction rational. Oh and that when she was arrested she fought her way to her kids, and then told them that the police were going to take her away, take them away, and punish her kids for what happened as well, that that is just how the world works, that they should now care for themselves and ask a particular person "for a job" is the reason the judge added 10 years to her sentence. Of course, from some perspectives, she was simply relaying what happened to her, warn them, and give advice that helped her. Obviously this proves she is evil. That she mentioned she was proud of herself for warning her kids, especially, makes her evil, it was called out specifically by the judge. Why? Obviously because it shows what police, and society in general, will do to help you. Not only will the police, and judges, and child services, and schools, and ... NOT help, they will punish YOU for anything that goes wrong. That is all they ever do. They will do this ESPECIALLY if it's their fault and their responsibility that things went bad, and it won't matter, at all, how illegal their actions are (yes, it is illegal for the state to fail to get kids to school. Of course, child services regularly physically prevents kids from going to school. This is apparently allowed for child services, that is normal, and that even fucking death row makes accommodations for inmates to go to school is not hypocritical at all). There is ZERO police culpability for not helping in the lead up to the murder. For not helping her as a kid. Zero culpability for child services for failing for 13 years to get her to school. Zero culpability for the school for not making it happen. None whatsoever. There is ZERO responsibility of the state for not helping her to the point she can't read. For not helping her with violent fights at her home. And, above all, you can't even mention that this, of course, wasn't in fact "the state", or "the police" or ... that didn't help, that it was specific individuals that have a name and a responsibility, specific government employees that could be asked to account for their failures.
- 47282847 1y ago
  > None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this Untrue, overgeneralized. I can provide a lengthy list of literature about that, but for now will refer you merely to one of the most prominent researchers who also happened to coin the term Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and pushed for its inclusion in the diagnosis manuals, Judith Herman. Even Sigmund Freud wrote a bunch of highly critical political works, like “Cilivization and its Discontents”.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Sigmund Freud is a person who became rich protecting rapists. His best paying product? "Consultancy". What did that mean? He'd testify in court how women invite rape. How it is the dream, the deepest desire of every woman to get raped, ideally by their own sons and brothers, and they do everything possible to achieve that. Of course, he only testified for (a lot of) money. Oh, and he'd testify that because such women were a "danger to public morals", they should be incarcerated. He achieved that outcome (women accuses man of rape, Freud testifies, man goes free, woman gets locked up in one of Freud's facilities, paid for by the man, of course) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_Coverup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_Coverup Oh and just in case you think men came off better: you know what the deepest desire of men is? Murder. Both murdering and getting murdered. He meant (just as he did with women) in general, that every last man desired to murder every other man in existence, and specifically his father, then rape his mother. Freud's paid testimonies got more than one rapists off scot-free and their victim incarcerated. You see where the problem with psychological theories is and how bad it gets? Because, of course, Freud immediately preceded something called "industrial psychiatry". Don't look it up. You don't want to know. And, as your very comment illustrates, this has not caused psychiatry to distance themselves from the man. Of course, psychiatry hasn't even seen the need to distance themselves from the holocaust: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 ( https://archive.ph/rOW5I https://archive.ph/rOW5I )
    - 47282847 1y ago
      I did not refer to Freud because I agree with his ideas. The claim was that psychotherapists do not look at environmental and societal origins of psychological disorders, which is false, plenty do. Have you looked into the material by Judith Hermann, the other psychotherapist I mentioned? You will find that she writes at length about Freuds denial and patriarchical circumstances.

spwa4 1y ago

The problem with the trauma model is that only the trauma is looked at. NOT the environment that caused it. Because nearly every trauma ... happens at school, and it is the responsibility of teachers and more generally the government. None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this, and certainly not considering that the problem is always specific individuals, essentially always teachers. (because if it's other kids, that too is legally and practically the responsibility of teachers, and it's always specific teachers that don't have a good grip on what happens in class or on the playground) And the problem is not even necessarily that these people are responsible, but that they won't stop and the trauma will repeat and repeat and repeat again and again, until the kids either run away or use violence to resolve it. Then, of course, you punish the kids harshly for doing that, and find extremely scary sounding names for what the kids did. Anti-social behavior. Theft. No conscience. Psychopaths. Oh but teachers bullying kids in class, that is not psychopathy. Even teachers failing to prevent bullies attacking other kids on purpose, that is not anti-social behavior. Teachers asking kids to become drug dealers, that is NOT a sign of no conscience. School, police and government cooperating to hide that this happens is not illegal or wrong or any of those things and certainly they can't be expected to fix such problems, and certainly the state can't be expected to pay for the consequences the way they demand of everyone else. ONLY the kids' behavior is antisocial. Yesterday on Netflix I watched "I am a killer", and they showed that a particular woman was proud of what she's done. Of course there was a slight gap in what the police and judge believed had happened. You see, this kid was abandoned by the government (parents kept her home, and didn't even give her enough food. The government visited every once every 8 months and of course child services help was far worse than being left at home). She fixed this situation ... by drug running, and that, she kept doing for 20 years. Now after 15 years she was in the same house where a drug-related murder happened, and "cooperated" with the murder. By then, she had kids, who where in the house and people she could not physically beat were very angry, so she did not intervene. She called the police on the fight the weeks before. They never showed up. The police accusation of her "cooperation" with the murder is 90% that she never called authorities, and didn't risk herself or her kids. She then pointed out that it isn't even true that she didn't intervene, she had called the authorities hundreds of times over 20 years, including not long before the murder about the very same fight, but her expectations of help ... shall we say "evolved" over those hundreds of times she asked for help. When she called the week before, nobody responded. She then also helped hide the body, expecting that the police would punish her if they found out. Now of course according to the police the cause of such actions are psychopathy, antisocial behavior, not having a conscience, being evil, ... and so on. The cause of the situation is NOT, and shall NEVER be considered to be that she had an expectation that even if the police reacted, they would either do nothing, or punish her. And this sort of thinking, no matter how rational, shall not even be mentioned in the case at any point, no matter how often she repeats it. It shall ESPECIALLY not be mentioned that this is in fact exactly what happened. You see, she was right. The police eventually of course intervened (when the guy was 2 months dead, and it wasn't even theoretically possible to help anyone anymore, by the way) ... and punished her. But of course the state, the non-reaction of everyone whose only job it is to prevent this sort of situation from building to this point, is just totally innocent. The fact that they did not just fail ... but purposefully abandoned her, and especially not that such behavior could be considered to make her reaction rational. Oh and that when she was arrested she fought her way to her kids, and then told them that the police were going to take her away, take them away, and punish her kids for what happened as well, that that is just how the world works, that they should now care for themselves and ask a particular person "for a job" is the reason the judge added 10 years to her sentence. Of course, from some perspectives, she was simply relaying what happened to her, warn them, and give advice that helped her. Obviously this proves she is evil. That she mentioned she was proud of herself for warning her kids, especially, makes her evil, it was called out specifically by the judge. Why? Obviously because it shows what police, and society in general, will do to help you. Not only will the police, and judges, and child services, and schools, and ... NOT help, they will punish YOU for anything that goes wrong. That is all they ever do. They will do this ESPECIALLY if it's their fault and their responsibility that things went bad, and it won't matter, at all, how illegal their actions are (yes, it is illegal for the state to fail to get kids to school. Of course, child services regularly physically prevents kids from going to school. This is apparently allowed for child services, that is normal, and that even fucking death row makes accommodations for inmates to go to school is not hypocritical at all). There is ZERO police culpability for not helping in the lead up to the murder. For not helping her as a kid. Zero culpability for child services for failing for 13 years to get her to school. Zero culpability for the school for not making it happen. None whatsoever. There is ZERO responsibility of the state for not helping her to the point she can't read. For not helping her with violent fights at her home. And, above all, you can't even mention that this, of course, wasn't in fact "the state", or "the police" or ... that didn't help, that it was specific individuals that have a name and a responsibility, specific government employees that could be asked to account for their failures.

47282847 1y ago
> None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this Untrue, overgeneralized. I can provide a lengthy list of literature about that, but for now will refer you merely to one of the most prominent researchers who also happened to coin the term Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and pushed for its inclusion in the diagnosis manuals, Judith Herman. Even Sigmund Freud wrote a bunch of highly critical political works, like “Cilivization and its Discontents”.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Sigmund Freud is a person who became rich protecting rapists. His best paying product? "Consultancy". What did that mean? He'd testify in court how women invite rape. How it is the dream, the deepest desire of every woman to get raped, ideally by their own sons and brothers, and they do everything possible to achieve that. Of course, he only testified for (a lot of) money. Oh, and he'd testify that because such women were a "danger to public morals", they should be incarcerated. He achieved that outcome (women accuses man of rape, Freud testifies, man goes free, woman gets locked up in one of Freud's facilities, paid for by the man, of course) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_Coverup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_Coverup Oh and just in case you think men came off better: you know what the deepest desire of men is? Murder. Both murdering and getting murdered. He meant (just as he did with women) in general, that every last man desired to murder every other man in existence, and specifically his father, then rape his mother. Freud's paid testimonies got more than one rapists off scot-free and their victim incarcerated. You see where the problem with psychological theories is and how bad it gets? Because, of course, Freud immediately preceded something called "industrial psychiatry". Don't look it up. You don't want to know. And, as your very comment illustrates, this has not caused psychiatry to distance themselves from the man. Of course, psychiatry hasn't even seen the need to distance themselves from the holocaust: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 ( https://archive.ph/rOW5I https://archive.ph/rOW5I )
  - 47282847 1y ago
    I did not refer to Freud because I agree with his ideas. The claim was that psychotherapists do not look at environmental and societal origins of psychological disorders, which is false, plenty do. Have you looked into the material by Judith Hermann, the other psychotherapist I mentioned? You will find that she writes at length about Freuds denial and patriarchical circumstances.