I think it makes sense from the standpoint of, if a child is in an environment where "apparently normal" is actually abusive circumstances, maybe if they are isolated from the world by an abusive family for example, then an EP would need to take on ANP-like functions. If there is no point in time when the person could feel that "I'm fine, I haven't been hurt." Then at least partial hurt is better than the truth.
I'm not sure if I can relate to it or not, probably not, but I also take the standpoint that you said here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luce
Anyway, I had long since accepted that our brand of our multi-fragmented nd sometimes fluid dissociation was exactly as it was in us because that was exactly as it needed to be, but it was interesting to read a theory that makes sense of it.
Anyone else relate to this?
|
I have looked for theories that described my experience and never totally felt that way. It's because I wanted to feel like there was some kind of empirical document I could show to other people that would make my pain objectively valid and make it feel valid to have so much buried need for support and nurturing. But people never understood me when I took that approach (and also I did not feel supported, only more and more alone.) I realized that 99% of the time people are only going to have a partial understanding of this more clinical/theoretical perspective and even if they understand the theory they might not apply it correctly to an individual person.
But, they do understand and can work with the emotions themselves.
Over-intellectualizing is a defensive reaction to over-feeling. While the feelings are being analyzed and examined they are not being felt. It's like they're put on pause. I think that compulsion to find an explanation for the emotions is the most explanatory thing of all. It's like, counter-motivation. It directly indicates how badly we do not want to have to feel them.