3 ms·

> So just because the author of this piece can deal with trauma doesn't mean that all people could deal with trauma the same way. There are standard treatments

by mrxd 12y ago

> So just because the author of this piece can deal with trauma doesn't mean that all people could deal with trauma the same way. There are standard treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder, and all of them are focused on strengthening the individual's ability to cope with symptoms. Altering their environment to avoid the occurrence of symptoms is not a valid treatment. In fact, its considered a symptom of PTSD (and several other mental health issues) which has its own specific treatment called exposure therapy. This treatment exposes the patient to what triggers anxiety and stress in a controlled fashion. You, and many trauma activists, take a different view of the mental health profession on the nature and treatment of trauma that seems to reflect political and social goals of the movement rather than the well-being of the victims. As much as I agree with those goals, I have ethical problems with exploiting victims of trauma for political ends.

dalke 12y ago
Let's suppose everyone at work calls me a peon. "Hey peon, get this for me." "Hey peon, make me some coffee." "Hey peon, sudo make me a sandwich." Hey peon, get rid of these compiler warnings." People replace my door tag with "Peon Dalke". People sneak in and change my screen saver to "Peon's machine". And so on. Assume also that I don't particularly like being called peon, but the entire office thinks it's funny, and funny when I protest. Should I get treatment to be able to better handle being called peon? Or should I change the workplace culture, perhaps by getting the owner involved, so people stop calling me names? Or should I quit? (The only way it could be POST-traumatic is for the so-called trauma to stop.) It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. If so, you have an odd view on life. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about.
- mrxd 12y ago
  You're the one who insists on framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue. The logical outcome of that is mental health solutions, not social and political change. The scenario you described is called injustice. If you go to the owner and say "This needs to stop because it stresses me out", you've betrayed the cause. You've traded justice for mental health as the issue we should care about.
  - dalke 12y ago
    I apologize, but I don't understand what you just wrote. I don't recognize how I am "framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue". I am a firm supporter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and followup legislation. You can see through some of my earlier messages on HN. I have written may times about cases of injustice where there is no inkling of there being mental health issue. I mentioned Onacle v. Sundowner elsewhere in this thread, as a case where workplace "humor", isn't. Even looking back only on what I wrote here, I see no way to draw the inference you just did. I wrote: > It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. > If so, you have an odd view on life. I meant it as a rejection of what you say I embrace. Telling targets of harassment that they need mental treatment is outright victim blaming. Could you explain how you drew your conclusion? Unlike you, I do not believe that stress is always a mental health issue. I agree with the EEOC guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html : > > 2. Are traits or behaviors in themselves mental impairments? > No. Traits or behaviors are not, in themselves, mental impairments. For example, stress, in itself, is not automatically a mental impairment. Stress, however, may be shown to be related to a mental or physical impairment. Similarly, traits like irritability, chronic lateness, and poor judgment are not, in themselves, mental impairments, although they may be linked to mental impairments.13 In any case, I did not use the word "stress". I said only that I protest. Under EEOC guidelines for discrimination in the office, a clear statement made to supervisors, or made in such a way that supervisors should be aware of the complaint, is sufficient for EEOC law to apply. I wrote it that way because EEOC law doesn't require people to be offended, hurt, traumatized, or even the target or beneficiary of discrimination. (Judges hate to have to figure out how someone "really" feels.) I believe similar principles should apply to a broader range of situations, including the harassment scenario I proposed, even though it doesn't fall under EEOC law.
    - mrxd 12y ago
      I fully understand that you are committed to the ideal of justice. My point is that reframing an issue of justice into an issue of mental health for the practical purposes of addressing the concrete impact of injustice nonetheless undermines the larger vision in the long term. The original article is about the "new meaning of trauma", which contests the claim that trauma as the result of microaggressions is a serious and significant issue. You call the author an asshole and argue on the contrary that microaggressions are traumatic, so its clear that you believe its quite important that we view victims of injustice as sufferers of mental health problems. Or why call someone an asshole who says otherwise? I call this framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue, and I disagree with it. I believe the focus should be on the question of justice. Apparently you do approve of treating it as a mental health issue. Probably because you believe it will motivate the removal of traumatizing triggers (i.e. racist and sexist words and actions). In other words, trauma is a convenient pretext for fighting bigotry. Trauma victims are a cause that everyone can get behind. It's more politically palatable. I have several objections to this strategy. First, it's a betrayal. We shouldn't hide the cause of justice behind a politically acceptable pretext. Second, mental health treatments advocate controlled exposure to triggers, not their removal. Third, true psychological trauma occurs due to events of exceptional violence. If you believe that injustice is pervasive in society rather than exceptional, it wouldn't produce trauma by definition. The model you present, of many tiny papercuts adding up to trauma, runs counter to psychological models of the human brain. Many small mental stresses adds up to habituation—that's the theory behind exposure therapy. The concept of microaggressions in fact suggests that victims are less likely to be traumatized by racism and to view it as normal. That victims of microaggressions are nonetheless upset by them implies that they are not traumatized, but angry, and rightfully so.
- washadjeffmad 12y ago
  There's a danger in humorlessness in that it often insinuates itself into one's identity through piousness and victimhood. Fear of a blow can weaken and damage us far more than the blow itself. Now, mental health treatment doesn't have to mean clinical care. Sometimes it's being encouraged to get more familiar with your coworkers, or just helping them get to know you better. Teasing is often just that, trying to include a person or express comfort with them, and when someone reacts badly or isn't honest about things, blowing up or bottling up, those are usually indications of poor expression or self control, which could be more serious and compromising issues. So yes, if the person is unable to bring themself to confront their peers, clearly relay their wishes, and broker an understanding, they may need some help (ie- treatment) to realize that they can, should, and how. Mental health, like physical health, is something we have to work at to maintain and improve our entire lives. Saying all of our thoughts and emotions are reasonable and perfect by default because why else would they be any other way is about as sensible as the idea that morbid obesity is healthy and natural because why else would our bodies be able to be that way other than by design? We have choices, we have volition, but do we have the motivation?
  - dalke 12y ago
    "Humorlessness"? Are you one of those people who think that the targets of harassment have to just laugh it off? Have you read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services? > On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape. > Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen “picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. The original court decision held there was no EEOC violation here, as all participants were heterosexual males. Was that humorlessness on Oncale's part? Surely no. At least, I don't find multiple and serious rape threats against me. Do you? Should Oncale have worked harder to become more familiar with his coworkers? Was Oncale at fault for "poor expression or self control", which somehow justified this behavior? Surely no. Should Oncale have instead worked more on maintaining his personal mental health? Going back to my scenario, "I" confronted my peers but nothing changed. I curiously note that you seem to blame the victim, and require the victim of unwanted "humor" to be inordinately capable of people management. Why aren't the peers in my situation the ones who need mental health treatment? Why do you think Oncale deserved being 'teased' with threats of rape?

by mrxd 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

Let's suppose everyone at work calls me a peon. "Hey peon, get this for me." "Hey peon, make me some coffee." "Hey peon, sudo make me a sandwich." Hey peon, get rid of these compiler warnings." People replace my door tag with "Peon Dalke". People sneak in and change my screen saver to "Peon's machine". And so on. Assume also that I don't particularly like being called peon, but the entire office thinks it's funny, and funny when I protest. Should I get treatment to be able to better handle being called peon? Or should I change the workplace culture, perhaps by getting the owner involved, so people stop calling me names? Or should I quit? (The only way it could be POST-traumatic is for the so-called trauma to stop.) It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. If so, you have an odd view on life. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about.

mrxd 12y ago
You're the one who insists on framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue. The logical outcome of that is mental health solutions, not social and political change. The scenario you described is called injustice. If you go to the owner and say "This needs to stop because it stresses me out", you've betrayed the cause. You've traded justice for mental health as the issue we should care about.
- dalke 12y ago
  I apologize, but I don't understand what you just wrote. I don't recognize how I am "framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue". I am a firm supporter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and followup legislation. You can see through some of my earlier messages on HN. I have written may times about cases of injustice where there is no inkling of there being mental health issue. I mentioned Onacle v. Sundowner elsewhere in this thread, as a case where workplace "humor", isn't. Even looking back only on what I wrote here, I see no way to draw the inference you just did. I wrote: > It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. > If so, you have an odd view on life. I meant it as a rejection of what you say I embrace. Telling targets of harassment that they need mental treatment is outright victim blaming. Could you explain how you drew your conclusion? Unlike you, I do not believe that stress is always a mental health issue. I agree with the EEOC guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html : > > 2. Are traits or behaviors in themselves mental impairments? > No. Traits or behaviors are not, in themselves, mental impairments. For example, stress, in itself, is not automatically a mental impairment. Stress, however, may be shown to be related to a mental or physical impairment. Similarly, traits like irritability, chronic lateness, and poor judgment are not, in themselves, mental impairments, although they may be linked to mental impairments.13 In any case, I did not use the word "stress". I said only that I protest. Under EEOC guidelines for discrimination in the office, a clear statement made to supervisors, or made in such a way that supervisors should be aware of the complaint, is sufficient for EEOC law to apply. I wrote it that way because EEOC law doesn't require people to be offended, hurt, traumatized, or even the target or beneficiary of discrimination. (Judges hate to have to figure out how someone "really" feels.) I believe similar principles should apply to a broader range of situations, including the harassment scenario I proposed, even though it doesn't fall under EEOC law.
  - mrxd 12y ago
    I fully understand that you are committed to the ideal of justice. My point is that reframing an issue of justice into an issue of mental health for the practical purposes of addressing the concrete impact of injustice nonetheless undermines the larger vision in the long term. The original article is about the "new meaning of trauma", which contests the claim that trauma as the result of microaggressions is a serious and significant issue. You call the author an asshole and argue on the contrary that microaggressions are traumatic, so its clear that you believe its quite important that we view victims of injustice as sufferers of mental health problems. Or why call someone an asshole who says otherwise? I call this framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue, and I disagree with it. I believe the focus should be on the question of justice. Apparently you do approve of treating it as a mental health issue. Probably because you believe it will motivate the removal of traumatizing triggers (i.e. racist and sexist words and actions). In other words, trauma is a convenient pretext for fighting bigotry. Trauma victims are a cause that everyone can get behind. It's more politically palatable. I have several objections to this strategy. First, it's a betrayal. We shouldn't hide the cause of justice behind a politically acceptable pretext. Second, mental health treatments advocate controlled exposure to triggers, not their removal. Third, true psychological trauma occurs due to events of exceptional violence. If you believe that injustice is pervasive in society rather than exceptional, it wouldn't produce trauma by definition. The model you present, of many tiny papercuts adding up to trauma, runs counter to psychological models of the human brain. Many small mental stresses adds up to habituation—that's the theory behind exposure therapy. The concept of microaggressions in fact suggests that victims are less likely to be traumatized by racism and to view it as normal. That victims of microaggressions are nonetheless upset by them implies that they are not traumatized, but angry, and rightfully so.
washadjeffmad 12y ago
There's a danger in humorlessness in that it often insinuates itself into one's identity through piousness and victimhood. Fear of a blow can weaken and damage us far more than the blow itself. Now, mental health treatment doesn't have to mean clinical care. Sometimes it's being encouraged to get more familiar with your coworkers, or just helping them get to know you better. Teasing is often just that, trying to include a person or express comfort with them, and when someone reacts badly or isn't honest about things, blowing up or bottling up, those are usually indications of poor expression or self control, which could be more serious and compromising issues. So yes, if the person is unable to bring themself to confront their peers, clearly relay their wishes, and broker an understanding, they may need some help (ie- treatment) to realize that they can, should, and how. Mental health, like physical health, is something we have to work at to maintain and improve our entire lives. Saying all of our thoughts and emotions are reasonable and perfect by default because why else would they be any other way is about as sensible as the idea that morbid obesity is healthy and natural because why else would our bodies be able to be that way other than by design? We have choices, we have volition, but do we have the motivation?
- dalke 12y ago
  "Humorlessness"? Are you one of those people who think that the targets of harassment have to just laugh it off? Have you read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services? > On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape. > Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen “picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. The original court decision held there was no EEOC violation here, as all participants were heterosexual males. Was that humorlessness on Oncale's part? Surely no. At least, I don't find multiple and serious rape threats against me. Do you? Should Oncale have worked harder to become more familiar with his coworkers? Was Oncale at fault for "poor expression or self control", which somehow justified this behavior? Surely no. Should Oncale have instead worked more on maintaining his personal mental health? Going back to my scenario, "I" confronted my peers but nothing changed. I curiously note that you seem to blame the victim, and require the victim of unwanted "humor" to be inordinately capable of people management. Why aren't the peers in my situation the ones who need mental health treatment? Why do you think Oncale deserved being 'teased' with threats of rape?