The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#131

Post by tailspin2019 » Wed, May 22, 2024, 4:48 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #110

sleno wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you summarize some practical takeaways from all these books? To be honest I've become a bit skeptical of how much this sort of stuff helps. From what I see, our society has become much more well-versed in all this psychology-therapy-trauma material in the last 20 years, yet despite this we're taking more anti-depressants and seeing more therapy than ever. Mentally and spiritually we seem to be doing worse than…

You asked for practical take aways, so I'll say this: Get good at communicating and being vulnerable. I know online spaces will tell you this is dangerous, and that your partner might leave you. Someone with this sort of background needs to be 'seen', and loved for who they are, and the only way that happens is if they truly know you. Second, realize that your partner is not the sole source of all your feelings about…

> Get good at communicating and being vulnerable.

Very good advice! (And the rest of your comment too)

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#132

Post by TeeMassive » Wed, May 22, 2024, 4:52 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #46

TeeMassive wrote: post #41

Finally a subject my childhood makes me "expert" at! People often say that I have a unsavory dark humor, but it's one of the best coping mechanism out there. My earliest memory is my mother spreading food all over my face because I didn't want to finish my plate. I remember my eyes hurting because of the pepper in it. My father threatened to shoot the family dog on a weekly basis to make me behave. I could not leave…

That's seriously awful. I'm glad you have a sense of humor because that seems like one of the helpful reactions that could arise from such a nightmare. > They would often bring me in front of the school's psychologist and he would make me cry in front of them, always blaming me, never once asking me what was going on at home. It's remarkable how institutions (the school psychologist in your case) often re-inflict the…

Thank you for the kind words!

In my experience, and not only with that instance, power defers to power. An unruly child's pleadings will never prevail over his parents that are really good at making themselves appear as victims (http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-miss...). Or as famous lawyer Gerry Spence said, "the gentleman of the bar is there for the other gentleman of the bar".

Also, let's not deny it, I was not a nice and adults would not be nice in return and I would respond in kind. I was a reflection of what was going at home. This makes other adults not want to be nice at all. I can't count the times where I was told "oops, we forgot to bring one for you" or something along those lines.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#133

Post by deciplex » Wed, May 22, 2024, 4:53 PM UTC

sleno wrote: post #87

igorramazanov wrote: post #36

Attachment Theory is an interesting subject on the matter. A few useful books which helped me with both understanding and healing (there're still problems, but it gets better): 1. Love Sense, Sue Johnson. 2. The Power of Attachment, Diane Pooler Heller. 3. Understanding Disorganized Attachment: Theory and Practice for Working with Children and Adults, David, Shemmings and Yvonne Shemmings. 4. The Body Keeps the Score…

Could you summarize some practical takeaways from all these books? To be honest I've become a bit skeptical of how much this sort of stuff helps. From what I see, our society has become much more well-versed in all this psychology-therapy-trauma material in the last 20 years, yet despite this we're taking more anti-depressants and seeing more therapy than ever. Mentally and spiritually we seem to be doing worse than…

For what it's worth, I'm mostly in agreement with you that contemporary therapy is overrated. I did have one quibble:

> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff.

In fact, and this is especially true for men, the correct response to this line of reasoning is basically "well, actually, no they didn't." The genetic lineages of most men over the entirety of human history, are extinct - we are descended from the comparative few who aren't. For example Ötzi the iceman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi) has no living descendants. He is typical.

Not only that, but there is no reason to think that the surviving genetic lineages are remotely optimized for individual happiness, or for that matter individual industriousness or productivity (esp in the context of modern productive relations) or whatever other metric you want to measure people by.

All of which is to say, that even accounting for the fact that basically most people who ever lived have no living descendants, we just don't value, individually or collectively, even the attributes that would have been selected for among human populations in the bronze age, neolithic, whatever. So if we want to make those things happen (i.e. if we want people to be happy and productive) we need to create the conditions for it and we need to give them significant help in doing so, as well. That "significant help" is probably going to be something like what we call "therapy" today - though, as I mentioned above, I think contemporary therapeutic practices are doing a horrible job at it. But, there is a job to do there, IMO.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#134

Post by wing-_-nuts » Wed, May 22, 2024, 4:59 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #129

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a layman, not a psychologist with sufficient education to prove or disprove her claims. When I judge someone's credibility, I take into account whether they've spread misinformation in the past. In this case, she has. Or at least she holds those beliefs and believes them strongly enough to speak openly about it on a public podcast. Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have fr…

That doesn't address the argument at all. You claimed that although her views on one topic seem reasonable, you believe they should be canceled, no longer promoted in society, buried.... because you strongly disapprove of her views on an unrelated topic. Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what…

I disapprove of her views because they were provably false, yet she still espouses them. Yes, I do extend this universally. I won't take advice on orbital mechanics from someone who thinks the earth is flat either.

If that's 'puritanical Maoist cancel culture' so be it. You told on yourself with that phrase. This isn't a good faith discussion, and I'm out.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#135

Post by reaperman » Wed, May 22, 2024, 5:04 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #129

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a layman, not a psychologist with sufficient education to prove or disprove her claims. When I judge someone's credibility, I take into account whether they've spread misinformation in the past. In this case, she has. Or at least she holds those beliefs and believes them strongly enough to speak openly about it on a public podcast. Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have fr…

That doesn't address the argument at all. You claimed that although her views on one topic seem reasonable, you believe they should be canceled, no longer promoted in society, buried.... because you strongly disapprove of her views on an unrelated topic. Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what…

If someone shows they’re either stupid or dishonest I will deprioritize reading their books. I have infinite books to read before I die. I have to cull the list somehow.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#136

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK » Wed, May 22, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

zaphar wrote: post #121

graemep wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff. In very different societies. Our societies have gradually become less and less like what we evolved to fit into: small groups, time out doors, lots of face to face contact with people you are close to etc. Some past societies were pretty miserable for many people. I am pretty sure slaves had lots of trauma and other psychological pr…

Religious Faith and Belief are choices. They have to be because they are fundamentally about unprovable things. So in one sense they are absolutely practical. However if you don't want to choose a religion then it may not be practical for you. It is in no way the case though that Faith is something that just happens to you. It's a personal choice.

Of course not. Religion is a choice if one becomes religious as an adult. However, for the vast majority of religious people, they become religious at a young age, when they cannot make any choices.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#137

Post by bongodongobob » Wed, May 22, 2024, 5:31 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #129

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a layman, not a psychologist with sufficient education to prove or disprove her claims. When I judge someone's credibility, I take into account whether they've spread misinformation in the past. In this case, she has. Or at least she holds those beliefs and believes them strongly enough to speak openly about it on a public podcast. Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have fr…

That doesn't address the argument at all. You claimed that although her views on one topic seem reasonable, you believe they should be canceled, no longer promoted in society, buried.... because you strongly disapprove of her views on an unrelated topic. Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what…

He said:

She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.

You're the one talking about cancelling, not him. We all have the freedom to listen to who we want.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#138

Post by a_conservative » Wed, May 22, 2024, 5:41 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #108

igorramazanov wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure "woundology" may indeed make things worse. There's another book which I haven't read yet about the dangers of therapy and underestimating the people's intuition and resilience - "Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable. It gives lots of evidences on what you've just said. Just simply living a life, focusing on goals and targets, making mistakes and learnin…

>"Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable. I had this book in my read queue, until I saw a podcast where she basically outted herself as an anti-vax covid denier. She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.

I’m not saying this to try to start a fight or anything. You strike me as a kind person, so I’m going to give this a shot.

I am a bit of a contrarian about lots of things. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known were major contrarians.

Are Linus Torvalds or RMS contrarians? What about Richard Feynman or Tesla?

I don’t really know if any of those examples would be widely considered contrarians, but my point is that people are multi faceted. Dismissing a person in a broad manner for unpopular opinions in one arena, strikes me as a religious mindset.

Does everyone have to pass a purity test before their opinions are able to be considered? Is that healthy?

Thank you for any consideration you can give this. I truly do not mean to start a flame war. One more thought experiment: is it ok to learn woodworking from an Amish person who likely would have wildly diverging views from most people?

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#139

Post by Spellman » Wed, May 22, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

igorramazanov wrote: post #105

sleno wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you summarize some practical takeaways from all these books? To be honest I've become a bit skeptical of how much this sort of stuff helps. From what I see, our society has become much more well-versed in all this psychology-therapy-trauma material in the last 20 years, yet despite this we're taking more anti-depressants and seeing more therapy than ever. Mentally and spiritually we seem to be doing worse than…

Pure "woundology" may indeed make things worse. There's another book which I haven't read yet about the dangers of therapy and underestimating the people's intuition and resilience - "Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable. It gives lots of evidences on what you've just said. Just simply living a life, focusing on goals and targets, making mistakes and learnin…

I agree that just marinating in a trauma and victim mindset isn't healthy. All you do is re-traumatize!

But that's why any therapist worth their salt will focus on engaging and healing those issues. Yes we engage with the trauma response, but in a safe space so that you can walk out of being trapped in it.

Re: The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]

#140

Post by wing-_-nuts » Wed, May 22, 2024, 6:50 PM UTC

a_conservative wrote: post #138

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable. I had this book in my read queue, until I saw a podcast where she basically outted herself as an anti-vax covid denier. She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.

I’m not saying this to try to start a fight or anything. You strike me as a kind person, so I’m going to give this a shot. I am a bit of a contrarian about lots of things. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known were major contrarians. Are Linus Torvalds or RMS contrarians? What about Richard Feynman or Tesla? I don’t really know if any of those examples would be widely considered contrarians, but my point is tha…

So, I divide things into two camps. I think one can hold an unpopular opinion about subjective things, and it's fine. I won't judge you for preferring tabs over spaces, even if I think you're wrong. I won't weigh that opinion against your other work either. It's like preferring sweet potato to apple pie. You're still wrong, but again it has no bearing on objective facts. :^)

When you're outspoken about an objective fact that has been proven out by a mountain of evidence like vaccines being safe, or the earth being round, that's when I become very skeptical of any of your other opinions.

The amish woodworker is an interesting question. I wouldn't judge him for being wrong about things outside of his domain as I'd assume ignorance instead of malice, but if he started popping off very wrong theories on the nature of oak vs pine I'd probably be leery.