Adverse Childhood Experiences.
Wiki.
Personal testimony.
Questionaire.
If you look at the questionnaire, you will see that the topic is a rather crude measure on a scale of 0 - 10, of childhood, where 0 is unproblematic, and 10 is really fucked up in every way. You are welcome to share personal details, and you are equally welcome to refrain from sharing. My own score is 0 which explains why I am such a lovely kind equable positive person. Lucky me, and lucky you to have my special attention.
But behind this crudity, there is a weight of psychological, and particularly psychoanalytic tradition. Currently, it finds favour as the Trauma Model. Freud's original theory, associated hysteria with childhood sexual abuse, and Alice Miller regarded it as a terrible betrayal that he essentially stopped believing his patients in favour of his 'fantasy' models because (presumably) the abusers tended to be paying for the treatment.
[quote=my second link]The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire asks 10 questions to measure childhood trauma, and each affirmative answer gives you a point. Research has shown that an individual with an ACE score of four or higher is “260% more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than someone with a score of zero, 240% more likely to contract hepatitis, 460% more likely to experience depression, and 1,220% more likely to attempt suicide”.[/quote]
These numbers are worryingly impressive, and unusually high for psychological studies, so while the trauma model my not be exactly right, there is something significant going on. The idea roughly is that these adverse experiences cannot be straightforwardly assimilated, and instead some psychological defensive measure has to be taken; dissociation, denial, retreat to fantasy, depending on the proclivities of the child. Thereafter, these defences are triggered by particular experiences sounds sights, or whatever, and thus one has a general stress, a PTSD like reactivity, and other defensive symptoms such as depression dissociation and so on.
This in turn leads to perhaps self medication tobacco, alcohol, etc, obsessive behaviour such as eating disorders, self harm, etc etc. In very short. Childhood abuse leads to self abuse, and that leads in turn to abusive parenting.
Now if you read Alice Miller, or Gabor Mate, they will tell you that it is not just in the gutter that you will find these victims, but some of the great and the good, actors businessmen, politicians are also suffering and coping as best they can with obsessive behaviours of another kind. Maybe doctors or social workers too, some them, are trying to fill a void they felt as children. The difficulty with such talk is that there is too much explanation for the amount of fact. It tends towards the unfalsifiable. Still, remember those startling statistics, and think on...
Personal testimony.
Questionaire.
If you look at the questionnaire, you will see that the topic is a rather crude measure on a scale of 0 - 10, of childhood, where 0 is unproblematic, and 10 is really fucked up in every way. You are welcome to share personal details, and you are equally welcome to refrain from sharing. My own score is 0 which explains why I am such a lovely kind equable positive person. Lucky me, and lucky you to have my special attention.
But behind this crudity, there is a weight of psychological, and particularly psychoanalytic tradition. Currently, it finds favour as the Trauma Model. Freud's original theory, associated hysteria with childhood sexual abuse, and Alice Miller regarded it as a terrible betrayal that he essentially stopped believing his patients in favour of his 'fantasy' models because (presumably) the abusers tended to be paying for the treatment.
[quote=my second link]The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire asks 10 questions to measure childhood trauma, and each affirmative answer gives you a point. Research has shown that an individual with an ACE score of four or higher is “260% more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than someone with a score of zero, 240% more likely to contract hepatitis, 460% more likely to experience depression, and 1,220% more likely to attempt suicide”.[/quote]
These numbers are worryingly impressive, and unusually high for psychological studies, so while the trauma model my not be exactly right, there is something significant going on. The idea roughly is that these adverse experiences cannot be straightforwardly assimilated, and instead some psychological defensive measure has to be taken; dissociation, denial, retreat to fantasy, depending on the proclivities of the child. Thereafter, these defences are triggered by particular experiences sounds sights, or whatever, and thus one has a general stress, a PTSD like reactivity, and other defensive symptoms such as depression dissociation and so on.
This in turn leads to perhaps self medication tobacco, alcohol, etc, obsessive behaviour such as eating disorders, self harm, etc etc. In very short. Childhood abuse leads to self abuse, and that leads in turn to abusive parenting.
Now if you read Alice Miller, or Gabor Mate, they will tell you that it is not just in the gutter that you will find these victims, but some of the great and the good, actors businessmen, politicians are also suffering and coping as best they can with obsessive behaviours of another kind. Maybe doctors or social workers too, some them, are trying to fill a void they felt as children. The difficulty with such talk is that there is too much explanation for the amount of fact. It tends towards the unfalsifiable. Still, remember those startling statistics, and think on...
Comments (208)
12 times more likely to commit suicide as a result of childhood trauma and yet this is apparently acceptable treatment in modern society. It's a fucking disgrace.
I ask because of this:
Are you saying you never felt a threat of being slapped?
My friend was tied to a chair by his mum and forced to eat soap once! Haha!
This one's very sexist:
[i]7. Was your mother or stepmother:
Often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?
or
Sometimes or often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?
or
Ever repeatedly hit over at least a few minutes or threatened with a gun or knife?[/i]
Yes. Never felt a threat of my folks physically hurting me. They rather helped me avoid feeling physically threatened, including that they encouraged my interest in martial arts.
Yes. That's what I'm saying. It is very sad that that is at all hard to believe.
I cannot honestly say a remember an instance of being hit/slapped vividly. I was on maybe one or two occasions though. Not a big deal. There was certainly a sense of “If I do X then I may get hit,” deservedly so on occasion.
Does that amount to a bolded 'often'?
Either grounded, some other privileges taken away, and/or I'd have to do some extra chores or something like that.
If you do it to an adult it's called psychological torture, and it's a crime against humanity.
3 for me. The questionnaire doesn't asses the impact of neglect, which is a comparative trauma of sorts. "Why don't you love me?"
Why is that unenlightened-san?
Yes, absolutely it's not even a minor offence against an adult. How the fuck does anyone support the fact that on your 16th birthday what was "for your own good" becomes a fucking war crime.
Mrs un scored 3, and she was almost annoyed not to get more. She asked the same question. And the answer is that this is not a therapy, or even a diagnostic tool, but a research tool. They want robust, rather than precise, and neglect is not the sort of matter of fact physicality you can give an easy yes or no to. So if you say to your doctor that you score 3 on this scale, he will look for stress illnesses, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, eating disorder, depression, addictions, etc etc. You might not have any of these, but you are at higher risk.
It's not that neglect isn't a factor, at least at some extreme, it's just down and dirty convenience not to go into it for these purposes - we're not trying to actually measure your suffering. When it's therapy time, and we get to details, then of course it is important.
Interestingly, when we look at Mrs un's wider family of aunts uncles and cousins, there are many more factors that are related to this list; alcoholism, suicide, physical violence, that are not on her list. As though one sibling took to drink, another to violence a third to depression, and each next generation family had its own list of woes as a result.
Well, I'm quite glad you aren't putting Mrs Un through therapy or that she needs it. Things seem to be going well in your part of the world.
Quoting unenlightened
I see, so then that produces a skewed distribution of who needs what. And those whos wheel squeak louder will get the grease. Which, then would lead to a perpetual neurotic driven demand for therapy of sorts. Anyway, have you experienced this phenomenon in practice rather than in theory?
Not really. There are obviously factors that are not accounted for in a short questionnaire. there are obviously degrees of 'often' and beating and sexual touching that are not accounted for. It does what it does, and not everything.
[quote=wiki]A 2005 meta-analysis of schizophrenia revealed that the prevalence of physical and sexual abuse in the histories of people diagnosed with psychotic disorders is very high and has been understudied. This literature review revealed prevalence rates of childhood sexual abuse in studies of people diagnosed with schizophrenia ranging from 45% to 65%.[2] An analysis of the American National Comorbidity Study revealed that people who have endured three kinds of abuse (e.g., sexual, physical, bullying) are at an 18-fold higher risk of psychosis, whereas those experiencing five types are 193 times more likely to become psychotic.[/quote]
This is the sort of thing that is interesting, not on an individual level, but on a theoretical level. These are not causes, but clearly they are important. Probably some people are genetically more susceptible to this or that. schizophrenia, or depression, or obesity, or... and some are highly resistant to them.
But for you, if you have a score of 3 and you have symptoms x, y, z, that are known to be associated with adverse childhood experiences as measured by this rough and ready guide, then there is an extremely good bet that your symptoms are related to your childhood experiences. And that might in turn suggest some therapeutic relation that involves looking in that direction, and that would then include whatever else was a stressor, including neglect.
So, I'm going to throw out my favorite word of the week, being "homeostasis", with yours being xyz... If I understand your reasoning correctly and the profound valence or salience of my favorite word of the week, then how do you interpret it according with theory and practice.
Forgive me if I'm clouding up this thread if your not interested in that concept at all.
So, I'll elaborate since you've shown interest in the issue. Namely, given your antipsychiatry sentiment, and my affinity of the (unthinkable) assumption that people can just as well live without drugs or antidepressants or major tranquilizers and simply cope or change their circumstances, then why (according to the links you have provided and what you have said yourself) is it so hard for people to assimilate traumatic experiences, and instead experience some internal or external outlet in the form of psychosis, addiction, high-blood pressure, self medication, depression...
Basically, I'm asking if there ever can be a quantification done in regards when medication is necessary or not, if we cannot attain a state of homeostasis with regards to traumatic or (lesser so) adverse childhood experiences, and if we cannot, then why not?
Quoting unenlightened
I think the difference between the people in the gutter and the ones who become successful is interesting. Surely chance has something to do with it, but what else? The severity of the abuse might. For instance, maybe a 7 on the scale has a better chance at success than a 9.
For successful people, perhaps there is a sweet spot of abuse where it isn't too high to learn from but not so low that you stagnate. Of course, people from all levels can succeed, so everyone must have a different tolerance to abuse. Of course, there are also ways to learn that don't involve abuse, or at least what we would classify as abuse. At the end of the day, to be right in the future, you must be ok with being wrong, and at least at first, being wrong hurts.
And what of potential? It is often said that challenges make you stronger, but I would disagree to an extent. Challenges only make you stronger when you complete or win them. If you leave them alone or lose, you will only become weaker. If you lose, then you don't learn what is required to win. Sure, you learn what isn't required, but that can be almost anything and win conditions are specific.
A believer in free will would probably argue that the difference now between the person who succeeds and the person who doesn't is their own decisions. But what affects their ability to make these decisions? Outside factors. If you are in a bad situation, then only something from outside that situation can help you, because without change a stable system will not change. Even then, help that intervenes could just make things worse.
It certainly does seem to come down to luck at some point. There is so much we don't know about the human mind that would be endlessly useful in our everyday lives. I like to imagine a world where we can make everyone live up to their full potential. Of course, that is much easier said than done.
Yes, I believe you are right. But, the generality of the question posed, leaves much to be desired in my mind.
I do have some of my own issues with the test though. surely being raped by a parent and suffering through a divorce @ 17 should not equally be a 'one'. Admittedly tangential to the op's point tho.
Ouch. Sorry to hear. Yeah, the test is pretty broad and all encompassing. I thought it was pretty short being only 10 questions for the issues raised.
They could just ask one question, 'how happy was your childhood 0 - 10.' These questions turn out to be more predictive. But they are only trying to measure one thing, andthewse are the questions that succeed in dividing people the best statistically. Whether they are consistent or even meaningful is secondary. They might have found it statistically significant to ask if you liked squishing worms as a child. It's like when the doctor asks where it hurts, it is meaningful to him whether you point with a finger, a fist or a flat hand in terms of how localised. Litmus paper, not a ph meter.
In a bit, I want to have a look at possible therapies in the light of the general importance of childhood experience, that seems incontrovertible in all these varied problems, both mental and physical. I think it's more interesting than worrying about the questionnaire.
How many holocaust members turned out as predicted by the study?
Alice Miller was particularly interested in celebrities, and she suggested that they are driven by the need for attention, and can never get enough to reassure themselves that they are loved. Gabor Mate talks about addiction, not only to drugs, but to money, status, power, and incidentally, they are interested in much more subtle forms of abuse than are caught by the questionnaire. But let me put it this way, being abused by Jimmy Savile s not 'sweet'.
Whether we like it or not, the effect of trauma simply doesn't work like that. The increase in cortisol resulting from early abandonment is greater in most mammals than that released even under fear of death, or food/water stress. Psychology does not adhere to what we think people have a 'right' to be disturbed by. That's exactly what studies like these are about, tracking down factors which actually do cause significant health and welfare risk later in life, not ones we just think ought to.
The Trauma model is inference from the data. If you want to question the data, you're going to have to do the work yourself, but if you want to question the model, you need another explanation of the data. And to dismiss the data without due cause is something I am happy to dismiss myself.
Another thing is I remember @unenlightened contradicting such inferences in Psychiatry's Incurable Hubris
All I'm saying is there are other factors to consider e.g. reason/rationality/knowledge/wisdom. It's not just adverse childhood experiences but also the concomitant lack of intellectual development for example.
The childhood Trauma model suggests that there are two particular circumstances that further influence the significance for children of adverse circumstances. The first is that the relatively unformed state and thus extra plasticity of the child brain allows a deeper and stronger effect. The second is that the necessary dependence of the child and the requirement to form bonds of affection with carers makes adverse experiences of or from those carers set up a contradiction in the psyche. Again, it is known in adults as Stockholm syndrome, but is assumed to be more strong in children and is sometimes exploited by abusers through 'grooming.'
[quote=Colin Ross] "The problem faced by many patients is that they did not grow up in a reasonably healthy, normal family. They grew up in an inconsistent, abusive and traumatic family. The very people to whom the child had to attach for survival were also abuse perpetrators and hurt him or her badly.... The basic conflict, the deepest pain, and the deepest source of symptoms, is the fact that mom and dad's behavior hurts, did not fit together, and did not make sense."[/quote]
http://trauma-recovery.ca/recovery/phases-of-trauma-recovery/
And when I've had a look, I might post something about this 3 stage conception of recovery, and how well it meshes with other ideas that are around.
Edit. It's decidedly gooey, if not flakey, and some of you will have to hold your noses a bit at the 'spiritual' talk. It's bit too alternative even for my jaded palate. Nevertheless, there is something of an overview of some more scientific thinking, and plenty of well meant and probably harmless at worst advice. Take what you need and leave the rest. I'm looking for something a bit more ... rigorous.
Here's her actual book instead.
[quote=Judeth Herman]The first principle of recovery is the empowerment of the survivor. She must be the author and arbiter of her own recovery. Others may offer advice, support, assistance, affection, and care, but not cure. Many benevolent and well-intentioned attempts to
assist the survivor founder because this fundamental principle of empowerment is not
observed. No intervention that takes power away from the survivor can possibly foster
her recovery, no matter how much it appears to be in her immediate best interest. In the
words of an incest survivor, “Good therapists were those who really validated my
experience and helped me to control my behavior rather than trying to control me.” [/quote]
I honestly question if anyone ever thinks they are loved. I can speak for myself and tell you that I'm not entirely sure, but my interactions with most people imply that they are insecure in some way. It's almost as if part of our psyche is being incomplete, and if we feel content, our minds will automatically look for some other hole to fill.
I think that at the end of the day, it is ultimately our fault for not being happy, but it is also necessary for us to be unhappy if we wish to continue to change and live. If you are happy living in a trash compactor, eventually the walls will cave in on you.
That's a very sad confession; I'm very sorry for you. Unfortunately, such insecurity has a tendency to become self-fulfilling, because the only way to test someone's love is to be unpleasant to them, and eventually, because no one's love is infinite, you will reach their limit, and prove yourself right again.
Ah, the self-fulfilling prophecy. I've been told by more than a few that is my greatest weakness. Maybe I'll overcome it someday.
I'll try and take the advice, thank you.
Yes, it is. I worked with students in isolation rooms before, and it was a horrible situation. We couldn't mainstream them, because they posed a danger to others (think, attacking students with scissors when told to please take a seat), but the state kept saying that their cases weren't severe enough to be placed in treatmemt facilities. Additonally, the same parents who mess up their kids get a huge say in whether a kid gets treatmemt or not--usually not.
Now, this is the proper response, although prematurely reached for some children. Perhaps, some Stoic or Cynical philosopher might nod their head in approval.
And, that's kind of the issue with love. It's often equated with approval. I mean, my elementary teacher didn't have to love me to show signs of approval. Kids don't get this and are rather indoctrinated that love is a supreme good, and then connect the dots that someone really cares about me or approves of my behavior when they are loved. Kind of a self-justifying circle.
Care is sufficient in such cases....
Yeah, tell me about it.
Quoting Wallows
Perhaps approval from the various teachers I had growing up felt nice, but love from them would have felt better. I think love is just stronger approval.
Tell me more.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
There's only so much of that to go around. I feel sorry for the poor task (double duty) of educating and raising children in overpacked, sugar high, hyperactive kids that teachers have to deal with.
And we pay them shit salaries too.
Quoting Wallows
It is a shame how much they have to do. The salaries especially. Most of the teachers I have had deserved a lot more for just what I put them through, let alone what younger kids probably did and still do. My college algebra teacher senior year was in a bad mood at least once a week from the algebra 1A kids that had just left. I'm pretty sure most of those kids turned in their finals blank.
I've been pondering over the issue of having kids. I'm 28 years old, never had a stable relationship; but, paradoxically I don't feel lonely. Anyway, there seems to be a real narcissistic urge to want to have children. Like, one's accomplishments aren't complete and filled with the impending fear of death. I don't think I'll ever have kids. Maybe adopted ones to reduce total net suffering for at least some children.
Everything that you pointed out from experience seems to imply the above to some degree.
*Puffs on a cigarette*
Do you want to have kids, why or why not?
Hmmm...
I thought all that shit was normal.
My score is a nine. The irony, I suppose, is that I know that I am loved and have always known it despite those people sometimes having a really odd way of showing/expressing it.
Holy...
Anyway, you seem like you're incredibly resilient and cope well in high-stress situations. :heart:
Comes with plenty of practice I suppose.
:rofl:
Do you want to have kids?
:blush:
Kidding.
No. My kids are grown. They have kids and lives of their own.
Quoting creativesoul
Great to hear gramps. I always thought you were a youngsoul with all your proclivity for being creative.
:yikes:
Just read the wiki article...
Ah well, you can't please everyone. I suppose this is just one more example of my having fallen through the cracks. I suppose I like being an exception to the rule. That's my normal.
Although, I've certainly been a man-whore at times in my life. It's easy enough to do, and it's sooo much fun! I still smoke cigarettes. I drink maybe once or twice a year. Thoughts of suicide? Not even once. Drug abuse? Nope. Experimented with all sorts of things. Not my cup of tea. I like sobriety much better. Thoughts are clear and consistent that way. Depression? I don't think so. Lazy? Surely I could do more. Given my history, I'm good with where I am. Some who know me well and are not from that background have said that they are quite amazed that I am who I am.
I certainly do not take credit for not having fallen into worse conditions. Some obviously do. That's too bad. But, it's not like I had to work at it. My dad(one of 'em anyway) used to say "I'd rather be lucky than good!" I just do what I want to do, and try to make sure that what I want to do is what I ought be doing...
I'll pass on having kids with you. You look like the crazy guy who gets all sorts of credit even though he could not get his own thoughts together. Guess that happens when you have all the right friends in all the right places.
You've drawn a weird correlation between age and creativity...
*Laughs*
Quoting creativesoul
Oh come now. Let's not commit the sin of dismissing hard work where it is due.
Quoting creativesoul
I suppose so.
Quoting creativesoul
Well, it's just that most breakthroughs in science or philosophy come at the age-range of 20-30. Am I mistaken here?
No need to suppose my friend. Pick yourself up a copy of the letters to Cambridge if you really want to know Wittgenstein. His personal correspondence is vital to knowing him. Guess who picked up all of Witt's broken disparate pieces for him?
You think all breakthroughs are existentially dependent up creativity?
I would say that they are more dependent upon something to be broken.
Habits of thought/belief.
Thank God for all those that assembled Witt's otherwise broken down chains of thought into a reasonable facsimile of a philosophical work, huh?
Likelihood... Statistics... Probability...
I am proof positive that knowing the likelihood and/or probability that X will take place requires knowing all possible influences of X taking place.
What has the study yielded that's of any good use to people who have been subjected to those sorts of lifestyles growing up(or those who've yet to have been but will be one day)?
I'm just glad I'm not complaining about nothing. He had this weird way of twisting everything so that he was doing it for the greater good and was never wrong. He was wrong often.
Quoting Wallows
My experiences have made me very indifferent on a lot of things. If my partner wants children, then I would have them for sure, but if it were just up to me then maybe when I can guarantee them a world where they will have all the opportunities they need to become successful. Maybe. I'm not too concerned with leaving my legacy behind in the form of children, I'd rather do it in a more important way.
Quoting Wallows
I think that hits spot on. It's weird to put so many memories and events into such few words, but also sort of comforting as well. As far as filling the void, I've become pretty ok at handling it. I don't think the weight of not having a father figure will ever just go away, but I can operate regularly (I hope) and can contribute to society so I think it's ok now.
As for you, live the best life you can. If your concern with having children is finding the right person, take your time. Take your time, but don't waste it. There does seem to be a limit in age as to where the eligible partners vanish. That is probably in a decade for you though. It would be a shame for you not to have children (adopted or otherwise) because you seem fully fit to raise them. If your concern is "knowing how to raise kids", I don't think anyone actually knows anyway. You'll be fine.
Depression is another one of those self-fulfilling prophecy things. It's very hard for me to make plans with friends at all, and forget about talking to girls. Sometimes you just have to force yourself to do things you know will make you happy, even if you think you don't deserve them. It's a work in progress kinda thing, so try and stop wallowing and start exploring. That, of course, is easier said than done.
What was your score again?
Cool. Don't feel sorry for me though. I'm good. More than good. I actually laughed at my score because I didn't think my life was all that bad. Still don't.
Interesting though that you didn't feel loved, and I did. Perhaps feeling loved holds more weight for us than the other considerations...
To some extent, having something is better than nothing, but the opposite is also true. If someone does something bad to you, you're at least part of their life. I was always just a pawn in my dad's plans. Of course, I would rather have that than leaving people guessing what didn't happen to me.
Quoting creativesoul
I think that often people see their childhood as the norm and that leads to normalizing bad habits. It really is hard to wake up and realize that you didn't have a normal childhood. I know the test isn't perfect, but you did get an A, so I have few doubts that there was some kind of abuse there. Of course, the past is in the past, all you can do now is hope that you can be as normal as possible, (which you seem to be doing well at).
Quoting creativesoul
I think very much so. Even if you are loved, it is sometimes hard to feel loved. At least for me. It's hard for me to believe anyone loves me, not because I necessarily do anything wrong, but because I wouldn't love me. I probably wouldn't even talk to me.
I think the evolutionary implications of such a thing are interesting. It clearly incentivizes living in groups, but also seems to encourage those who already are set to succeed. If your mother loves you, she will nurture you to make you strong, but feeling loved also gives strength. It goes to show how powerful tribal living is if love is so strong and so tied to it.
Well, this forum has a tendency towards personal issues that go unrecognized in daily life. Whereas philosophy can be therapeutic for some, like me.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Yeah, being wrong sucks. And, all those psychological defense mechanisms can go haywire.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Cool, but, what do you mean by that? I'm much more concerned about my sanity than projecting my issues and passing my defective genes to a new progeny.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
That's philosophy for ya. Hence, why I am quite addicted to it.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Well, I looked up your profile and your favorite philosopher is Diogenes. So, how do your Cynical philosophy with contributing to society?
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Yeah, I'm contemplating that issue as we speak. It seems to me that I have no desire to want to have children, so that's a big issue to overcome in my world.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Thanks.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Yes; but, wallowing is healthy. To wallow is to appreciate. I have grown content with all my issues and things in life. My psychiatrist is supremely frustrated at my lack of concern for myself and others except for my mom. Anyway, depression is a form of coping with the issues that the world presents. I don't think I will ever get undepressed. I have grown to like the black dog that never leaves your side. Society shuns being depressed hence so much anxiety over the issue. I don't like stress and tend to isolate myself from it. So, depression ain't all that bad. I'd rather be supremely depressed than deal with constant and persistent anxiety.
If we’re talking about raising children here then we know there is no instruction book and that there are an endless variety of ‘models’ ... how are we, in our ignorance, to judge what is the best lone of engagement for any given human being?
It seems to me the best we can do is be aware of mistakes we make yet not dwell on them too much. Sadly some people have a natural disposition to dwell on them and we end up with hypertensive care towards children where less would be more fitting.
I think what we personally imagine the ‘perfect’ childhood to be is more damaging than an imagined ‘imperfect’ one ... although at the extreme ends I’m unsure how we could compare them?
Quoting Wallows
I do think that most people are out for themselves, but I think that can be beneficial. If we lock what people want behind work that helps others, they will do it, and help other people whether they want to or not. Essentially, I like Diogenes because he is a great example of how cynicism can be used but often goes to waste because people disregard selfishness as evil. Also, his antics give me a kick, and I'm partial to a bit of mischief as well.
As for what I mean by leaving a more important legacy, probably helping to make a world like that.
Quoting Wallows
If you don't want them, don't have them. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Quoting Wallows
I think I share that a bit. I don't really care much about my own happiness, especially when the happiness of others is at stake. I've learned to go a bit easier on myself though. It's hard to be productive when you're unhappy and being productive helps others.
Haha. People remember you for the thing you don't do than rather do. Do you ever have that narcissistic urge to be remembered for something? I feel like the Cynics were essentially narcissists in their adoration of the good and ethics. There's a tinge of selfishness in living in society whilst disregarding everything it has to offer.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Well, we aren't machines here. There's an element of me that desires to be like everyone else and have kids, whilst disregarding the selfish urge to not be selfless.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Yeah, I feel you here. It's apathy speaking on my part. I have to deal with it in my own terms. So be it I suppose.
Filling in a questionnaire, reading a book, even joining in a thread is unlikely to have a huge benefit to a person in distress. But a better theory of mind might lead to better treatments, less stigma, all sorts of improvements. I would guess if you scored nine but have no symptoms of trauma, you are probably unusual. There is talk in the wiki, and in the book of "resilience".
[quote=Herman]stress-resistant individuals appear to be those with high sociability, a thoughtful and active coping style, and a strong perception of their ability to control their destiny. For example, when a large group of children were followed from birth until adulthood, roughly one child in ten showed an unusual capacity to withstand an adverse early environment. These children were characterized by an alert, active temperament, unusual sociability and skill in communicating with others, and a strong sense of being able to affect their own destiny, which psychologists call “internal locus of control.” Similar capacities have been found in people who show particular resistance to illness or hardiness in the face of ordinary life stresses.
During stressful events, highly resilient people are able to make use of any opportunity for purposeful action in concert with others, while ordinary people are more easily paralyzed or isolated by terror. The capacity to preserve social connection and active coping strategies, even in the face of extremity, seems to protect people to some degree against the later development of post-traumatic syndromes. For example, among survivors of a disaster at sea, the men who had managed to escape by cooperating with others showed relatively little evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder afterward. By contrast, those who had “frozen” and dissociated tended to become more symptomatic later. Highly symptomatic as well were the “Rambos,” men who had plunged into impulsive, isolated action and had not affiliated with others.[/quote]
I wonder if this has any resonance with you? What has been said here about feeling loved is also important I'm sure, was there some sustaining relationship in what must have been some difficult times for you?
This thread is a magnet for the troubled and would-be advisers.
Sharing and being supportive is one thing.
However, how appropriate is it - on a philosophy forum - for someone to ask and receive more personal information whilst *puffing on a cigarette*, asking about wanting to have kids and then suggesting that:
Quoting Wallows
This is just wrong.
There is just too much personal information being given out by the vulnerable.
I liken it to voyeurism.
Yes, I wasn't expecting it to go this way at all. But I don't think it has got dangerously personal. One brings one's outlook to philosophy anyway, and hopefully we are something like unruly siblings that fight and squabble but have an underlying loyalty to each other. And of course you can always call on big brother if you think anyone is getting hurt. There is another thread that was extremely confessional that I had to back away from... But feel free anyway to change the tone to something a bit more formal and theoretical.
Really ? After all your experience on forums and this particular 'family', you didn't expect this kind of exchange ? I find that difficult to believe.
Flagging up concerns to the admin and moderator team is a rare event.
Intriguing that whenever anything like this comes up, it is portrayed as something like betrayal of an 'underlying loyalty' by an outsider.
Regarding 'tone', informality is not the issue. Neither is there a requirement to be theoretical.
There is nothing in this thread which lies outwith forum guidelines.
However, as you say, part of philosophy is 'bringing one's outlook'. That is what I have done.
For better or worse.
Perhaps I am naive and innocent. I assumed most people here would be scoring 0 or 1. The first surprise to me was that folks could not seem to imagine bringing up children without any punishment. I knew there were one or two people with 'diagnoses', but apart from them...
Anyway, I don't consider you at all an outsider, and your concerns are totally legitimate. There is a delicate line to tread on the one hand between honesty and self-indulgence, and on the other between friendly interest and voyerism, or 'therapism'. I do try to curb my enthusiasm a bit, but my interest is strong, and I think the reason for that is that although I score 0 in family relations, my school experiences were rather less than idyllic, so I have something to reconcile for myself, not just a concern for others.
You, naive and innocent ? Not a chance in hell.
I'll leave it there.
I suppose I do have that urge, but I also wish to earn it. I don't think I'm important at all right now. Also, I wish to do good things because they are good, not necessarily because I will be remembered. However, to me, if I'm not remembered for them they weren't good enough.
However, I would be interested in what Cynics considered to be good. I think an important and all too often ignored step of doing the right thing is actually figuring out what that would be and justifying your actions with that.
And yes, I think it is selfish to live in society while also disregarding what is has to offer. Perhaps you can be selfish towards yourself? If I do part of the work, I deserve some of the pay, but what if I don't feel that I deserve the payment I get?
Quoting Wallows
Well, if you feel the need to be normal, not having kids is starting to get there. Regardless, I don't think anyone would blame you for not conforming in a way like that. It certainly isn't hurting anyone (unless your mother REALLY wants grandkids).
Quoting Wallows
I have to wonder if that kind of apathy is good or bad. Recently I was asked which flooring to get in my kitchen and my only answer was "whatever you like". That doesn't cut it for a lot of people, and sometimes it even upsets them. On the other hand, it lets people get what they really want instead of having to worry about how I feel.
The symptoms of smoking... parents smoked... grandparents smoked...
Sexual promiscuity... well, I am easy on the eyes, I suppose. Couple that with more liberal views, alcohol(sometimes), and women who like/want sex without further expectations, and...
I'm definitely unusual, if we go by what others say and/or how most others act, talk, and/or think...
The score took me off guard. I was actually laughing, like... really???
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Of course, I've done quite a bit of self-reflection. Long before this thread I realized something very important. The first three years or so of my life was in a very loving, stable, nurturing, liberal(not too much), healthy environment. Even afterwards... everyone always seemed to like me... no matter where we lived... no matter what sorts of people I found myself around... I seemed to be able to make friends and get along, to blend in(sort of)... Teachers throughout middle school always liked/loved me. None were allowed to get too close though. I was always needing to find a new best friend. Usually was a group of three of four. Even now though, not many are allowed too close(that may be a consequence?). I can walk away like the CIA... :wink:
12 schools before high school graduation...
Survival mechanisms are funny things, huh?
I don't see what wrong is being professed by advocating some wallowing or talking about issues. Again, I liken philosophy to therapy, which you can find all the way back in Plato's allegory of the cave or in Wittgenstein's Investigations. And, about the wallowing. It's a harmless practice really.
Anyway, if you don't want to see me wallowing, then I suppose you can block my posts.
That analogy makes sense to me. Looking forward to the part about therapies. It's something I think a lot about, but I also tend to get trapped in my own thought-circles.
Edit: Oops, see that conversation already began, below the post I was responding to.
Again, what' wrong with self-improvement or self-therapeutic ventures that philosophy can be? I mean, having spent some ten to fifteen years on philosophy forums, I've noticed a tendency towards topics like "let's save the Earth" to my personal favorites of "addressing depression". I don't find any use to tell a person to 'go study psychology' or 'seek professional help', which are disingenuous to the issue that an individual may experience.
Although to be fair, I've noticed also a tendency towards treating these issues in a non-controlled manner that encourages confirmation bias and derealization of the issue that an individual may experience. Such, as delving a little too deeply into Schopenhauer or Nietzsche to the extremes of Cioran.
Just my two pennies.
I don't think anything's wrong with that ( in moderation, balanced by other things.)
This sounds right to me.
The tricky part is validation & it's so tricky it gets me frustrated if I think about it too long.
One of the nastier side effects of trauma is it warps how you see the world, and interact with it and the people in it. And that can play out in all sorts of ways. There are protective ways of interpreting the intentions of others that, while understandable in the wake of abuse, can end up, long-term, being detrimental. The emotional experience must always be validated, but validating narratives can sometimes perpetuate a self-sealing self-abuse. Only sometimes narratives that seem skewed are actually real (Freud, "hysterics") and not validating thosedeeply reinforces feelings of isolation and abandonment.
In stark terms, victims of trauma often (consciously or unconsciously, implicitly or explicitly) solicit affirmations of the reworked world they live in, for sheer survival. They are very attuned to signs of disbelief and suspicion, while also looking for ways out of the psychological hell they're in, which ways out would involve someone who can see the way in which they're distorting the world. Only it's hard to know, for an outsider, what's real and what isn't, because if your patient is living in a distorted world, they're probably meeting other people with equal distortions, leading to horrible things that people outside that world wouldn't necessarily understand, and sometimes the very fact of distortion can be self-fulfilling, creating the world it sees, and it's such a mess.
(I guess I'm talking third or at least second stage in terms of the therapy outlined in the link. Obviously, in the first stage, validation and safety is more important than anything else. Mourning and reintegration seem like they require a starker confrontation)
Addendum: It's important to undo the simplifying narratives because "grooming" of the already traumatized works exactly by making use of distorted narratives. Your therapist may think you're confusing things, and may even gently offer gentle 'challenges' without outright saying that you're confused, but you know what he really thinks and meanwhile this other guy (at the moment) is totally sure you're right and no one actually gets you, and why are you even doing therapy when theyre all a bunch of expert idiots?
If you only trust people who validate invalid stories, you're only going to trust people you shouldn't.
This (with the last post) is distressing to me, because I don't know how you progress from there. It seems like a double bind.
Yes. I read through the resilience part, and those descriptions are pretty accurate, although in my case at least there were several other factors I think that got me through the night(as a youth). To be clear though, while nearly all the boxes were checked, some more often than others, not all of those things happened continually and/or throughout my youth.
I consider myself lucky. You can consider me however you like...
Can't be done. Cannot see your own shortcomings/flaws/mistakes in thought/belief. Takes an other. As csal just skirted around... it takes another who can be trusted and will not reinforce unhealthy habits of thought/belief.
Quoting creativesoul
Strange to think that some authority on the matter of one's distorted thoughts and/or beliefs cannot be assessed through self-therapy. I mean, check out the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy just as an example.
It always takes an other. That's all I'm saying my friend. Always. In isolation there is no possibility of recognizing one's own mistakes in thought/belief, and/or unhealthy habits of mind, whatever they may amount to.
Quoting creativesoul
I'm not quite sure about that. I have read studies of the effectiveness of CBT in treating depression, anxiety, and other ailments individually. Have you seen them?
Check out the efficacy of thought/belief!
:wink:
Do you see the similarity between what CBT is doing and the position that I've been arguing for as long as you've been aware of me?
How so?
Pretty much.
Pretty important to know what thought/belief consists in and/or of. Changing terms changes meaning. Changing the terms one uses to recollect events can make recollecting the events a bit healthier, a bit less stressful. Anyway...
I've got philosophy to do...
:smile:
Laterz!
:party:
Quoting creativesoul
Absolutely!
In terms of childhood trauma, we are dealing with a dysfunctional primary relationship.
Quoting csalisbury
Right. How can you trust anyone, when you cannot trust your own trust? This is exactly the devastating global stress that results from an uncaring, or unreliable carer. It goes to the extreme that being abused feels like a place of safety, and a caring relationship is untrustworthy, because the abuse is always anticipated.
"The first principle of recovery is the empowerment of the survivor." But this is also, I'd say, the last principle. Look for someone who with open eyes will say that they trust your trust and your lack of trust. Someone who will help you fix yourself when you are ready. You are bound to be distrustful, you ought and need to be distrustful; It is no random madness. So the first step, if you will, is to trust your distrust. And that means not settling for the first person with a gift for psychobabble you come across.
What I am seeing here is how a science based theory becomes an artful, creative, unique and individual relationship. Perhaps other passages resonate with you more, but this last case, Paul, shows the delicacy required to negotiate the maintenance of the patient's autonomy and "not reinforce unhealthy habits of thought/belief."
Christ you know it ain't easy.
I'm not sure it's a matter of trust with trauma. More like self-acceptance and self-love, which can only be instilled through a complex psychological transference mechanism between the career and cared for. Is this another way of stating empowerment?
Well yes, I'm trying to say that they amount to the same thing.
Everyone begins helpless and dependent. So if those you depend on are not dependable, you have to accept what their actions declare, that you are not worth caring for. And once you have accepted that, anyone who seems to care for you must be either playing a trick on you or just stupid. Either way, you cannot trust them.
Has that been your professional experience? I'm assuming this more applies to those with personalitiy disorders along with schizophrenia moreso than a depressive or anxious type
Because it seems to me that people come to your office seeking hard and concrete solutions and not qualitative results that are immesurable such as developing trust. Perhaps some convincing and Rogerian agreement is needed for both parties to reach some mutual understanding?
My professional experience is that this is the best vacuum cleaner. It has a friendly smile and a long wire.
I speak without authority, the best understanding I have, and I am talking about anyone who has suffered childhood trauma that has damaged their development in terms of self-esteem. People do want quick and easy solutions, and they are not available. If you read the section on the stages of recovery, you will see many examples of people wanting, and needing the therapist to be a miracle worker. That too must be negotiated.
*grows worried*
Humdrum conundrum.
The test is interesting regarding the questions it doesn't ask which seem like they'd trigger the same sort of negative consequences, like whether one was bullied excessively by non-adults, lived in a very unstable environment due to extreme poverty, experienced deaths of family members, and so on.
I often hear how resilient children are described, and how they adapt very well to changing circumstances. It offers comfort for the adults who have not provided the proper stability I think, but I'm not sure it's very true. I think most kids remember, consciously or subconsciously, every blow, both figurative and literal, ever laid upon them.
I'd like to still present where my mind immediately goes, when reading the quotes you've posted. But presented in that more reflective, disinterested spirit - not identifying as the speaker of the argument, but looking neutrally at the argument as it arises.
So : One of the roadblocks to the childhood trauma victim in therapy is 'splitting', the desire, mentioned in the quote, that the therapist be an ideal rescuer, free from any flaws. Fury if he's not.
Now when this writer is talking about these artful, subtle, negotiations that characterize successful therapy, I immediately have the thought:
'this is another idealization. We have theoretical pictures of what therapy should be, plus examples which are probably polished and reworked to fit as examples of that therapy. Next thought : If a patient were to work with a therapist fed on these ideas, they would be trying to fit the therapy in that mould, and be blind to anything that doesn't fit into it. They would be constantly translating the therapy, in progress, into examples of the idea. Final thought : I can't help but see all these therapeutic insights and connections, as things captured at the moment, 'bagged' in the field, in service of the germinating book. A therapist of a cetain tier gets prestige through publishing original therapy insights, and knows, having read other books, that they need examples. What we really have is a Nice Idea with real life examples in service of the Nice Idea."
Now, something seems half-complete about these idea, but this is what comes up immediately. If I were't trying to bracket the idea, I'd probably try to polish it and make it seem stronger than it is, as a sheer argument. But I'm presenting it here as it arises.
I think I roughly understand, and I think you are potentially right. Shall I compare therapy to a Turing Test? It is more lovely. The more you specify what will happen in a Turing Test, and what will decide it, the easier it is for a programmer to design an appropriate response. It is in the uniqueness of the encounter that the test occurs. And the same goes, I think for therapy. The reality and therefore the trustworthiness (and completeness) of the relationship is only established by the unique responses to the individual in each case, and everything that is theoretical and exemplary is mere mechanics. Here, we are reading the score, not playing the music. I wonder, does something like this idea enter every encounter, or is it a particular psychobabble alarm? Certainly, there is little prospect online of ever escaping the tyranny of the endless string, and that is both its safety and its futility.
If you see a recording of therapy going well, you see something indescribable - which I will now describe. There is a moment in what seems a normal dull conversation when something, a word, a gesture, a long silence, connects and penetrates; you can see someone change, something awaken, something release. the technical term for this is "Juju".
A psychobable alarm, i think.
What's weird, looking back, is that my 'idea' depends on a total misconstrual of the therapy. Herman states very explicitly that the point is to collaborate and build trust, to meet on an equal footing. My 'idea' ultimately amounts to this: it is possible for exploitation to take place by masquerading as the opposite of exploitation. In short, it's as simple as - 'yeah, that sounds nice, but they're probably lying, or at least self-deluding'
But that's not what the idea feels like as it arises. It roars to life as some iron philosophical point about the 'truth' of what's being said. The possibility of lying somehow becomes the impossibility of not lying, and it happens immediately and is accompanied by anger.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, I think I know just what you mean. This is a little self-indulgent, but if you don't mind, I'd like to link to a very short 'story' i wrote a few months ago that I think is very close to what we've been talking about. (the 'voice' in the story isn't mine, though most of the ideas are.)
Streaming
Story's really self demonstrating. The part about people not showing themselves despite telling their story really resonates with me. Some of that seems like intellectualisation; systematising a person over their impressions to find their hidden essence. But, fortunately and unfortunately, we show ourselves in ways we won't ever understand with every step, lip movement, or word. In that regard, other people are more in touch with your essence than you can ever be, as the intellect's attempt to synthesise experiences does it from, however temporary, the vantage point of a self narrative; a PR man.
I guess the question comes down to which stories /self narratives do you promote, which show truth and raise autonomy, and which do you fight on all fronts to rid yourself of. Of course, fighting the good fight doesn't mean winning, hence grace (as you've nicely characterised it).
Larger thread: got a 4 on the scale. I grew up in the dying days of a cult of personality, there were cruelties that don't fit so well on scales. I learned them, tried the least and most obvious of them out like a costume. As I've gotten more perspective on it, I found it's easy to hurt people in ways they'll never understand, and easy to live out the patterns you flowed in forever.
Compare it to Santa giving coal to naughty kids on Christmas I think. After my limited experience with dealing with some people who have gone through rather troubling experiences, they tend to (if the desire to do so at all exists) to cope with these adverse experiences by some derivative of the Stockholm syndrome. What do you make of that sort of phenomenon?
If you just mean that it is only through interactions and specifically talking with others that one's traumas mys be dealt with, then I would say that may be right. If you are suggesting that it must be through some expert other, then I would consider that a baseless assertion.
One of the intractable problems I see with trust when it comes to professional therapists is that they charge you for their services, and just as you would not expect a prostitute to love you or know you, why should you expect that the therapist really knows you or cares about you? How can you trust someone if you do not feel that they genuinely know you and care about you?
What had been traditionally the therapeutic effect of talking about one's issues with trusted friends has been appropriated, and turned into a paid service, it has been monetized and turned into a kind of prostitution. Therapy is also very expensive and not affordable to those on low incomes.
I meant that it always take's another worldview to take on another way to look at the same things. Another worldview always takes another person. That person need not be an expert on the mental ongoings of humans. A healthier worldview can be acquired accidentally through purely coincidental interactions(being in the same place at the same time with another whose view invokes less stress, resonates well, is true, and/or is based upon trustworthy foundations). Loosely speaking here, of course...
Good questions to ask oneself of everyone and anyone who we chose to come into contact with. Great question to ask a paid professional. All professionals, I would think, would need to answer in the affirmative.
It does not follow from the fact that profit is gained that it is the sole motive. Some people love to help others.
If being paid for one's services makes one a prostitute, then capitalism has made prostitutes of us all.
I think that that's a misleading way to frame the discourse.
I'd say it's not impossible that someone might really care about people she doesn't know, but I would say it is vanishingly rare. Usually what might appear to be genuine care is another agenda masquerading; for example professional pride or self-image.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes, and I think there is a very real sense in which it has; if you buy into it at least. ("Buy into it" look at the terminology there and its implications).
Quoting Janus
When one generalises from the patient's side on the psychology of the therapist, one's findings are bound to align with one's experiences. And indeed I am sceptical that most therapists are very effective, even though they may give good service as mental prostitutes.
Perhaps you might relate better to a machine? You know they are effective substitutes when they start having human problems...
I wonder if I can or need to convince anyone that seeing in such virtual relationships (and remember that our relationship too is virtual, though hopefully not entirely mechanical) the necessary safety that is the first requirement, is actually a symptom of the widespread trauma in relationships. My phone is my only friend.
There is absolute safety only in death. So an actual encounter with an actual other is something to which both parties must bring their fears and suspicions. And if you will allow a moment of unsolicited advice, in such an encounter, do not make your first demand that the other will always love you and never leave you. That is what a 0 year-old needs, but a 10 year-old already needs a measure of separateness.
@Wallows All you will ever get here, or from a machine is coal; if you want to meet the real Santa, you have to find that other with whom you feel so safe as to be prepared to take a risk. And this is not a once for all affair, but a relationship that builds trust where there is not much trust, little by little. There are some who can see to the heart of another immediately, but most of us take a long time.
:ok:
But, it seems to me that to boil down the issue, it's rather the humanistic touch of having someone that seemingly cares about what you have gone through, that really produces the therapeutic effects of therapy.
Yeah, the primary goal that doesn't get mentioned enough of what I have experienced with therapy is the formation of a relationship between the patient and some third party. I must have a deficit of oxytocin because I've always been averse towards forming new relationships.
Yes, love and care is not based upon, or generative of, ownership or slavish dependence, quite the opposite.
Yeah, that's a good way to look at it. I've been feeling lately that my next step is to stop heeding the prompts and self-mystifications of the false narratives, and just be with whats left when the muck settles. What's discomfiting is there doesn't seem to be much left but a kind of somber blankness, which my mind tries feverishly to cover up. It's hard to find what to promote that isn't wrapped up with that covering. Right now all I really have to work with/on is: don't lie, honor commitments, don't make other people feel shame.
But you're good at it! :) I don't think much is accomplished if you set yourself against yourself. Wisdom doesn't come from pretending to be a wise man. It comes from being the magnificent fuck-up you are.
Authenticity. It would proceed from blankness, because the other stuff is a constructed filter. The filter is supposed to protect you, but it can end up having you live somebody else's life and not yours. So maybe let the real you wreck friendships and produce frowns as long as it is the real you and not pent up frustration and unresolved dramas having to do with childhood crap.
It's as if a person (call him Jeff) is ever producing a play. The play depicts a childhood trauma. Maybe the child in the play is saying "no" to an evil person. It's something the child didn't get to do the first time around. But what other people see is that Jeff just seems to be saying "no" all the time, to everyone. What's happening is that Jeff is recruiting everybody he meets to star in his drama where he gets to say no to the evil guy.
If Jeff could become a little more conscious of this, his intellect might be able to help. The drama wants to be completed. The completion is that the asshole hears the child and accepts the no. Maybe Jeff needs to see that there is no external evil anymore. The evil is a feature of Jeff's psyche now.
One way this could work out is that Jeff finally admits out loud that what happened to him was wrong. That explicit condemnation of the evil may create the kind of change necessary for Jeff to avoid becoming a evil himself (as he unconsciously uses the big people from his childhood as guides for who he's supposed to be.)
Or it could go a different way involving forgiveness, but that's not one you can rush. It has to come naturally or not at all. Anyway, becoming aware of dramas that you tend to play out like a broken record can free you of the obstacles to being that blank fountain of life that's really you.
Easier said than done, of course, because if you need to transfer onto the therapist to let it out, and its the raw thing, you're in the territory of 'going too far' and the therapist has a right to be treated humanely etc etc.
I guess the example hinges on whether Jeff has replicated the abusive situation by seeking friends who are abusive toward him in a similar way. Like you said, as though he's producing a play. In that case, I'd think he'd be justified, since anyone willing to participate in that play is probably producing their own play where they get to abuse Jeff. The two visions align, and Jeff's outburst both expresses his truth and disrupts the shitty play of the others.
It's different if jeff's already gone through that and expressed the whole thing, and found himself with true supporters, who stick with him, but still Jeff keeps wanting to restage the play.
Maybe you can get addicted to the feeling of someone 'hearing' the no? like addicted to the explicit condemnation?
I think there might be a place between condemnation and forgiveness. I agree with you that the latter has to come naturally or not at all. I feel like that place is just - a quieting. If forgiveness comes, it comes; if not, it doesn't. It doesn't matter because it's not your responsibility to forgive.
(postscript: Shaming is not pleasant (obv). Shame is one of the most unpleasant, most shattering, feelings. And it's palliated somehow, by passing it on to someone else. I don't like the whole thing at all. The people who can best shame are the people who are most acquainted with shame. Its this nasty vampiric cycle I just want out of. )
Interlocking dramas. Neither sees the other. Each only sees a figure from the past or from dreams. People frequently interact with one another this way. Maybe most of the time? Is the therapist/client different? Is it also interlocking dramas? I guess it depends on the therapist. A therapist would have to be aware of what kind of dramas she feels a need to play out: savior? mother? lover?, and drop out of that so that all there is in the room is the client's drama waiting to be seen.
I think Jung said that transference is actually love. It's love from the depths of the client to whatever out there is helping. That would mean there has to be some kind of help. In what form does help come?
Quoting csalisbury
I don't know. That might mean that the one who's supposed to be hearing it is deaf. The drama can't be completed.
Quoting csalisbury
True.
Quoting csalisbury
But can you feel shame if you give people the freedom to think whatever they like about you?
Interesting exchange.
Quoting frank
I would agree with this, except that it turns out to be the same narrative - the same play with a different ending. Rather like the great virtue of not shaming puts all the rest of us to shame.
Quoting csalisbury
'They saw that they were naked and were ashamed.'
The original narrative; and thus universal. We cover up, we make plays, and live out dramas, and a life without these dramas looks empty, like the void from which creation sprang.
I feel as though some memories cannot be assimilated into one's being, such as profound trauma, sexual abuse, extreme neglect, even bullying.
Now, people tend to focus on these rare events that have happened in their mind/body/spirit, and in some sense get stuck or fixate on them. What results from this is most likely all the aforementioned woes of existence. The solution cannot be found in reliving the past or perpetuating it according to emotive reasoning or rationalizations.
The solution, I think, is to simply encode new memories and keep on moving forward. Someone might say, that this is wishful thinking or easier said than done; but, there really is no way; but, forward.
Perhaps, this is what you were getting at @unenlightened? Because as it stands we are in a swamp of these "rationalizations". Yes, there is nothing more genuine and authentic than one's feelings; but, from my readings on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, they can be detrimental in dictating or reinforcing negative habits or cognitive distortions.
Feelings are evoked by drama. One enacts the drama in order to have feelings to cover up the emptiness.
First the place of safety. Off-stage, the green room perhaps, an asylum.
And then stop acting, stop the dramatics, for which you need someone who won't feed you lines, and won't try to 'direct' you.
And then there is the possibility of insight. I will say some words about that and they will be inadequate.
It doesn't arrive through clenched teeth as the result of effort and struggle, nor is it earned by good works; it is the gift of grace. One sees what one is, what one is made of, that it is the drama, that it is the past that one replays, and that there is nothing else to one's substance than this melodrama, and one is always hiding the void from oneself and from others. And if ever you hear someone telling you how they have realised the void, you can be sure they have made a drama out of insight.
But if one hasn't done that, then one sees that the drama does nothing to fill the void, it is just a distraction and a mischief. One stops, and then life can begin.
OK, now we are talking about identity consolidation, am I correct? And, if I am, then I don't see how any escape is possible, as you say. It's all there in the background. The coal burns nicely, and nobody cares about the smoke until they have to breathe it, or until the "frog" croaks from the heat. I can see where this is going, but, I suppose that there is no cathartic tabula rasa that one might want to find in the grace of God or in some monastery or even in the ecstasy of nirvana found in meditation.
But, if the issue is forming and developing a healthy and sound identity, with ego boundaries firmly established through social norms and the roles we thus play, then doesn't your analysis collapse on itself and digress into some quasi-nihilistic insight? After all these years interacting with you, and trying to find some guiding theme in your philosophy, I am coming to the conclusion that you either want us to digress into a state of an atavistic emotive reactionary motivating force that would 'direct' us or a Nietzschian derivative of logotherapy. Am I mistaken here?
[quote=His Bobness] I try my best to be just what I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them,
They say 'Sing while you slave', and I just get bored.
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.[/quote]
See, that's where you go wrong, looking for guidance, as if there were someplace else to be. Get back to the fields and sing! :rofl:
I think I'll continue wallowing contently while puffing on my cigarette.
*Wallows with grace*
'Somber blankness' will hopefully eventually turn into 'blankness' without the negative affect. Otherwise known as an untroubled mind. I'm not there yet either; I've noticed the same kind of thing, as the worries recede nothing takes their place, and eventually unburdened reactivity takes the place of worry. But I don't think the lack of trouble advances uniformly on all mental/behavioural fronts, for me at least it comes in waves. The waves correlate with the troubles I deal with IRL but don't react 'entirely healthily' to.
I also think there's something to the idea that coming up from the bottom, when you are very introspective, comes with some insights. Insights that I far too readily project onto others, but insights nevertheless.
Not all services rendered for monetary gain are sexual practice. Those have a certain moral/religious connotation and can result in invoking opposing feelings/attitude. Prostitutes are shamed in public far more than they are admired/valued/praised. For those who hold prostitution in negative light only, capitalism has negative value if they think/believe about capitalism in such terms. If one holds prostitution in a positive light, the capitalism is valued in the same light.
Regardless of one's judgmental tendency towards prostitutes, drawing an equivalence between capitalism and prostitution does not have a clear result. Rather, that equivalence is ambiguous. It means different things depending upon one's morals.
It's rhetoric, but well used.
Do I think/believe that they are some psychologists, therapists, and/or self-help gurus who do not care about helping patients as much as they care about receiving payment? Of course. Not all.
Feelings are often mistaken for thought/belief.
That is my problem with some purportedly therapeutical discourse.
Shit happens. Shit happening is reality. Whether or not it is also drama depends largely upon how the shitty situation is handled. Drama is largely self-perpetuated. Not always. Bad shit happens to good people. Good shit happens to bad people. How shit is handled can do both, help or hinder the possibility of drama.
There's always value to be had by carrying the good away after laying down the bad. The linguistic framework one uses limits/delimits what can be subsequently and coherently stated. One can deliberately want to come to different terms about the same events. One who is wise knows that coming to different terms changes one's outlook, and the ability to do that always takes an other.
Not just any other will do.
How can we trust?
Acquire knowledge of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That's the first step. Use that knowledge as a filter through which to sift all subsequent relevant offerings. It gets one closer than not. This alone is not a solution to anything at all. It's a means for improvement as it is a means to better navigate the world.
Realize that not all people are the same. Not all groups of people are the same. Not all individuals are the same aside from their namesake. All paid therapists are therapists. Some are not trustworthy. Some are. The same goes with other people, except they will often do what they believes will help for free. Others help unknowingly if the right attitude is within earshot.
There are trustworthy people in this world.
:rofl:
Just friendly offerings. Do with it what you may.
That will have been me at least; and Alice Miller.
Drama in the sense of the narrative of the dramatis personae; in this sense, identity is drama - the identity 'prostitute' already implies the relationship, financial and sexual and moral, and the identities 'therapist' and 'client' also imply a drama of being that is already understood and merely acted out.
So by and large, allowing for exceptional people, serenity is another drama, and the stoic, the philosopher, the reconciled, even the oracle, are all dramatis personae.
-- from Nietzsche's notes
Nietzsche and Depth Psychology
So all self-identity and/or self-image is drama on this rendering? All different personae are but kinds of dramatis personae.
Maybe. But that sounds a lot like the drinker who's gone white knuckle a few months and is slowly convincing himself that a better approach than drying up would be to drink more economically, drink only in these settings etc.
I mean, how'd it work out for Nietzsche?
Nietzsche's organizing idea is like an underlying fountain of energy. Act in line with it, and hard things become easy. Act against it and easy things become impossible. What is alcoholism in any that? Probably depends on the individual.
Quoting csalisbury
I think you're pointing to something, but I'm not sure what?
The important thing is to get rid of this guy:
Still, not of all the advice in the song-thing is bad, if you don't take all of it together, and if it's not read like a computer-man. For Jung, the shadow has important stuff to tell us, but our distrust of it distorts it, right? If you repress the feminine, all women have shrill harpy tones. If you repress your passive side, everyone seems lazy and full of excuses. If you repress your active side, everyone seems impulsive and stressed-out. if you repress modest discipline, everyone sounds like fitter happier.
I kind of picture an hourglass shape. At the top is all the plays, the lived-out dramas and so forth. At the center is a void [silence]. On the bottom is still...something, but it only comes up to the void if there's not something in the top half waiting to pounce on it, and reshape it, to fit it in to all the other stuff. That crouching-in-wait & pouncing is what I'm trying to let go of, though with very limited success.
Maybe intrusive, but have you actually had personal experience with mental illness? I ask because generally I don't trust mental health advice unless it's personally battle-tested or from someone professionally trained in the field.
The stuff I shared about roles and dramas was first vaguely suggested to me a few years back. I turned it into a way of understanding aspects of my professional life, but the principle generalizes. The stuff about the underlying fountain of creativity and energy is also mine, but Nietzsche said the same thing, so it seems to give it a little weight to bring him up, plus and I'm reading Neitzsche now.
If it seemed that I was trying to give advice to apply to a specific mental illness, concern should be alleviated by the fact that csalisbury pretty much rejected everything I said.
And then that leads to a reaction of people who seize onto negativity (sadboi memes etc) and react so far in the opposite direction, that they won't brook a bit of positivity, because it's offbrand and caving-in.
And then that leads to over-self-aware positivity, like half-winking animal memes, which is still in the whole thing of not actually confronting negativity.
Your whole argument here is based on the false premise that everyone needs some form of "approval" to justify their attitudes. The "leave me be" attitude portrayed so awesomely in the above picture, pretty much confronts this premise in telling the rest of the world to "feck off if they have nothing nice to say".
Or in other words, treat me as you would a person at work if someone has worked at all in their lifetime.
As far as I'm aware, or my attitude at work has always been guided by checking your emotions at the door. I digress because I set standards so high for myself that I find it hard to work around anyone under 30.
Could be paranoia, I suppose?
Anyway, addressing your response again, I figure that it's a healthy attitude not to become a people pleaser or seek out approval wherever possible. Less dissonance, and stronger ego boundaries, I suppose?
I guess a healthy balance is the issue here. I think, the De Niro attitude fits for the society we live in America. I don't think he's all that a popular actor over in Scandinavian countries, despite their social policies pretty much being in align with that quote.
Excessive deference to other people's preferences, or compulsive anxious thought patterns of doing harm, make it much more difficult to enforce reasonable personal boundaries. People who get used to this style of thinking often end up in cycles of abusive relationships in the worst cases, or shutting themselves off from others due to a mismatch between how they feel they should behave and what is actually socially permissible for them to behave in accordance with their and everyone else's needs and wants. The excessive deference can greatly diminish autonomy, and the attendant thought processes which come along with that behaviour are debilitating by themselves.
Edit: how this can play out in terms of 'adverse childhood experiences' is that a person learns such excessive deference from the relationship model of their parental unit, as both a source of conflict avoidance/resolution and of the fear of that conflict. The necessary amount of self assertion is denied for reasons of guilt and fear, so guilt and fear become anticipatory responses to conflict, which reinforces the dynamic of deference/conflict avoidance through a feedback loop/constant habit. People might learn passive aggressive coping strategies to deal with the dissonance, which isn't pleasant for anyone involved.
Edit2: see also the origins of hypervigilance.
Supposedly, not many people deserve to be pleased. Back when I worked in retail and handling returns of products, I soon found out that the favorite word the customer wanted to hear was "I'm sorry", followed up with a quick refund for the created dissatisfaction.
In a communist utopia, nobody gets a refund because everybody gets the same shit.
Excessive? I suppose that means 'more than I want to defer'. And that depends, personally speaking, on how and who the other is. I call this being responsive.
The particularity of childhood trauma is that the anxiety is turned inwards to the developing self. One needs to control the (m)other because (s)he is dangerous and inescapable. And that becomes the only possible relationship; everything depends on my deference or defiance or avoidance, whatever. Until one learns different.
So in terms of theory, and possible therapy, the above discussion turns around this traumatised axis of possibility, and cannot expect to get anywhere.
Quoting Wallows
And did you also learn when to defer and when not to?
No, the customer is always right. They might have changed their return policy, as it wasn't Costco. I mean, even Costco with their money back guarantee had to eventually change their return policy...
Nah man. Deferring and conflict avoidance when appropriate is fine, deferring and conflict avoidance when inappropriate is not fine. Having one strategy, a single point of failure, isn't being responsive; it's a stoically held, maladaptive worry. The opposite of being radically vulnerable and responsive to the other.
Cynical, not Stoical...
If the worries were cynically believed their content would not be so arresting. Maybe stoic was the wrong word, though. The worries are situation indifferent, is what I meant. Ever present and watchful.
I like the irony. Hurrah for transformative conflict as a resolution strategy.
I'm not sure about this. I suppose you are implying that there is a difference between situation averse and situation indifferent, yes? I don't really like this rationale due to my beliefs about there existing higher-order volitions as opposed to simple binary logic.
I was thinking more about Das Man, or the notion that there's a one-size-fits-all sanity. I don't think you should continue shaming people with a re-engineered purpose. That wouldn't make much sense.
They say only the paranoid survive.
Indeed. That is the first principle; that response to trauma are necessary defences and aids to survival. To take an obvious example, a soldier in a theatre of combat where there is a constant risk of snipers develops a state of heightened vigilance whereby a twitch of a curtain across the street is enough to make him take cover. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to turn down the sensitivity when he is back home and there is no threat. So he has PTSD. It's not always so simple and direct, but the principle remains the same.
To put it another way, if one learns to expect abuse and neglect, then one expects it from everyone thereafter. It makes perfect sense, except that one does not continue learning - that some are abusive and some are not. And the nature of relationship is that if you treat someone as if they are abusive when they are not, they will eventually almost always become abusive because they are being abused by you, or at best they will withdraw, ie become neglectful.
I'm not a big fan of the notion that behaviors or memories can be unlearned or fundamentally altered. These memories tend to stick out and one identifies with the coping or defence mechanisms that allowed them to survive.
My theory is that if one finds themselves with a repetitive behavior or pattern, then they ought not to project their expectations in a self fullfilling loop. So, instead of prescribing the Vietnamese farmer who stepped on a land mine, an SSRI, buy him a cow to start a dairy farm instead?
I'm saying that people aren't as malleable as any frustrated psychologist might know.
[hide]One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.[/hide]
Is it still a joke if it makes you sad?
If you evolve in an adverse environment, then you may be ill equipped to survive once you leave it. While your paranoia might make you particularly well equipped to survive abuse, it's going to limit you once you're freed of the abuse.
There's a native American tribe in the southwest US that is known to be the most obese and diabetic population on the planet. They evolved in the desert, deprived of a predictable source of food. Their bodies became super-efficient at storing energy, but they now live in a land of plenty, so they just keep getting fatter and fatter.
That's actually quite paradoxical. If your aware of social Darwinism along with conservative sentiment that statement doesn't contrive with those doctrines.
It's a false dichotomy to require that I either accept we are either (1) entirely products of our environment and genetics or (2) entirely products of our choices. The conservative position is no more #2 than is the liberal position is #1. To accept #1 is to deny free will of any sort. To accept #2 is to pretend I could fly if I just chose to.
My position is that our environment and our genetics shape us, offer us all sorts of benefits and challenges, and define us is some real ways. I don't discount though the power of the will, whatever it is, that propels some of the the struggling to greatness and some with so many privileges to failure. Good choices and bad choices matter, including refusing to take the steps needed to move you out of your misery.
I suppose I'm lucky I can eat a hamburger and not gain the weight that some Native Americans do, but it's not a foregone conclusion that I won't get fat and some of the Native Americans I spoke of won't be thin. Choices matter.
You're right.
Just wanted to re-establish my bleeding heart credentials a bit, and this was handy...
In my spare time I acquired a lot of knowledge - through a combination of observation and the man-made help.
At 16 I began to have a permanent hallucination that is still present at 27, and had great interest in imagery.
I would stimulate my mind with imagery I found using man-made help.
The hallucination reacted after long periods of imagery reading - it would have epic events; it had a four major events, and during the time inbetween there were thousands of minor events plus all standard observation.
The hallucination is like a machine of lines and currents that grows, learns and broadcasts imagery as well as dream enhancement(I probably know the most about dreaming).
It is like an interactive shell that feeds from waste energy and is hyper during sleeps healing energy; I have learned a lot studying it's presence over 11 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/02/stephen-porges-interview-survivors-are-blamed-polyvagal-theory-fight-flight-psychiatry-ace?fbclid=IwAR0Bi30N_ykulk2XHaG6X5JvoeLZK7NZjDzMfu9mbDLy_KmI74-tvZDg3Lg
That's a good interview. I heard about the polyvagal theory somewhere else, recently, but only saw the headline and a precis. Reading the article, the theory makes sense to me.
I want to insert a little of my personal experience, with a very big caveat that the article is talking largely about sexual assault and I'm talking about something self-inflicted, and, I imagine, much less traumatic.
I used to be a big marijuana smoker, 14-20. At 16, I had a very bad shroom trip (ego-death, violent imagery, certainty about being in hell etc).
I really liked weed before that. It was like being in a cozy, intimate room with friends. My experience of smoking with people then was: the space changed, people were more themselves, their real selves, and it was easy to communicate and share. It was really fun, and funny. I treasure those moments a lot.
After the trip, I still had a little of that. But it was like the weed 'space' had in it a kind of whirlpool at the center. I was always kind of aware of it, in the way you're aware of something in your peripheral vision. I was feeling the waves or ripple-effects of the center all the time. Sometimes, it would draw me close to it, and I've have to go to bed.
As I got older, it got more intense. I've stopped now, because three or four times something like this would happen: I'd be very relaxed, settling into the 'intimate space' and suddenly one element would seem 'off'. This could be a character in a movie we were watching, or someone's gesture, or whatever you like. Suddenly, I would be fixated on this thing with a growing sense of...something. Then I would start to have flashes of random images (the time I most remember involved 1. a basement with exposed pipes 2. paper popsicle wrappers with melted popsicle juices. ) and these would flash back and forth, growing in intensity, until some feeling/image reached a distilled peak of [This cannot happen! If that were true, it would be too horrible!] and then I'd have to lay down. I'd be totally still and silent, immovable, and over me would continue slightly softer images and ideas, and there was always comfort in hearing people talk to each other about stuff, without hearing what they were saying, just the sound of voices talking to one another, that you can vaguely locate in the space you're in. Like parents relaxing or making preparations for a party , or something while you're very sick. These states would last for hours with me unable to talk, except in a kind of free-associative babbling, until I fell asleep. Then I'd talk to everyone in the morning (What happened man? you were really fucked up!)
Like I said, I don't want to equate this to the events the author was describing, but maybe it's drawing on some similar thing? I very much felt like I 'got' his description of 'freezing' while stuff happened around you.
Yeah, I can never overcome the pot-anxiety. It's like there, telling me that this isn't the best way to kill time.
pot-anxiety is real. I think we may have experienced it in different ways. Smoking with friends, for me, was the best way to kill time. If I could still access it, I believe I'd still feel that way. For me, it was like [whatever force] plunked down something that meant I couldn't go there anymore. When I was into mystical stuff, I got really hung up on the cherubim w/ flaming swords keeping everyone out of Eden.
https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-Opposite-Addiction-Connection/dp/1620408910
Chasing the Scream, which goes into the connection between drug abuse and childhood trauma and also the racist intentions of the original drug war and the failure so of the current conception of, treatment of and legal reaction to drug abuse. It also offers wonderful solutions to drug addiction. Luckily I never got addicted to any drug. Food, fantasy, to some degree sex I had issues with. The interesting thing is that I think my childhood experiences helped me to see society more clearly than most people and to have a healthy skepticism. But I was also lucky (and perhaps skilled) because I extended my social connections well and also adopted some mentors.
Here's something a bit peripheral ... https://humanparts.medium.com/the-danger-in-fake-positivity-and-spiritual-bypassing-c202040b8dd3?fbclid=IwAR3-R-geVAiM9-jahx94XAaZXPN4TgQtE4Vfnua8CcP-CWtdWzsglfmv9ms
For me that's central. In today's anti-emotional climate, with psychotropics and can do smiles as the rule, not judging the so-called negative emotions is an option everyone should at least be aware of.
ha! Any damaged person worth their salt oughta take a few moments and learn how to open a bottle with a lighter imo. A bottle, unopenable is its own trauma.
Yes. And add to that fake negativity. You can distance yourself from your negative emotions with schopenhauer and Cioran just as well as you can with Norman Vincent Peale and Live, Love, Laugh
According to Pessoa,'the poet is a faker/ who's so good at his act/ he even fakes the pain/of pain he feels in fact.' Same with the self-psychoanalyst for that matter. The prettier and more conceptually coherent you've made your emotions, good or bad, the further you are from them, maybe?
http://radiocafe.media/newmexican-perry/?fbclid=IwAR0n3v0-fZkjJqbsF83ln09r4TTKijvVwpBGPQjtxivEz3u4r91wLfwkVVI
Someone can get a score of 2 and also experience something worse in their childhood like:
Yeah, something like that.
wow. thank you so much for making this post. I have an ACE score of 5. When I learned about ACEs, it was like suddenly it clicked, and I understood why my life was so hard and messed up. The trajectory I was set on was a bad one, and this took a huge weight off my shoulders.
This is something that drives me up the wall. most people feel pressured to pretend like everything's ok. but then nobody ever honestly says how they feel. it's all just sparkly veneer. drives me up the wall.
The problem with these posts though I find is there is gonna be that guy that’s like. “Oh just a 2 for me, my parents left me in the wilderness after chopping my arm off and I had to work my way from there” which is only gonna promote this:
Quoting unenlightened
Because if that guy’s ok then what are my problems to his? I have to be like a 0 or something.
But what I meant there was more that there is a politics that holds that since we have declared it self evidently true that all men are equal, there is nothing else that needs to be done to sustain the reality, and if anyone finds themselves disadvantaged it must be a personal failing. Their lack of humanity, not ours. To hold such a view is to take a contemptuous position towards one's own weaknesses, and this is a divided, dissociated condition that projects the contempt on to others. The condition will obviously afflict most those who despite their trauma have material advantages but becomes persuasive also to any traumatised person ready to punish themselves... they wouldn't recognise themselves from this description, but the rest of us probably can.
It is hard to exaggerate how radical this idea is. No exams, no competitions - what on earth would we do all day? [quote=Bob Dylan] I try my best to be just like I am,
But everybody wants you
To be just like them.
They say 'sing while you slave' and I just get bored,
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.[/quote]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201304/the-most-basic-freedom-is-freedom-quit?fbclid=IwAR3g1JEFem_0ICV5TrWPSwMPpZHZl7cYLESq2w0P-Kvl7a-HAVTnLZloTMw
Here's a simple principle to reduce trauma in schools and other institutions.