Quote:
Originally Posted by blackwhitered
I think I know where jimi... is coming from, though. I think he might have misunderstood what you said, because I know I did.
What I thought you means was about the theory that was going around in the 80s or 90s about repressed memories. There were a lot of so-called "experts" who believed that almost all women and mentally ill people had been traumatized and simply repressed it. Even the ones who could remember their childhoods and knew they hadn't been abused or traumatized MUST have because in their minds, that's why people had problems. It was all very Freudian and pseudo-scientific.
Nowadays we know that true repression is actually pretty rare and only some disorders are the direct result of trauma.
No doubt having been traumatized makes you less able to deal with other issues, but so do things like stress and diet. It's not really a causal thing.
|
No, I am the last person to go after "repressed memories". I thought all that was bs speaking as someone who has some of those grey area memories. Zero point in trying to "uncovering" them, IMO but that is another story.
The point of the study >was< to show causal reason. That was the point of prospective and retrospective information. Feel free to read it yourself. There is a big difference between saying "all sorts of things happened and we think one or more of them might be responsible" which is what you're saying and "we can see that if we trace this backwards and forwards and we get the same results based on this common type of occurrence" which is what the study is saying. The difference is you can start to trace physical (neurological) patterns >because< of causality. Being able to do that is BIG. Again, the link in my post is about the physical part of trauma in the brain.
http://brainblogger.com/2012/07/18/w...-maltreatment/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk