Just curious % of psych conditions due to some form of earlier trauma

As a general response to the thread:

On the days when I can find some distance from my painful family experiences, I am able to look at my parents, and wonder how their upbringing affected their ability to provide healthy and supportive parenting to me and my siblings.

Although I don't know for sure, I can make a pretty good guess that my parents were not raised in a fully supportive environment, and there is a good likelihood that their parents also faced similar challenges.

I get angry sometimes that they weren't self-aware enough to see how their behavior caused harm, but then I think they might be angry at their parents for the same thing.

Perhaps it is my imagination, but I do think that my work now with T, is dealing with generations of unhealthy patterns. In a way, I feel like I am working to heal a family legacy of dysfunction.

In simple language, it is my attempt to 'break the cycle'. On my better days, I see this as an honor -- that I am the one strong enough to face these issues. On my tougher days, I'm just sad and angry.

So, it is a process. But, through out the whole process a part of me has to hold onto the hope that my actions NOW can bring positive change not only for me, but for other members of my family, and stop this cycle of dysfunction.

to all

> In past times and cultures, life was more difficult for children. And, now we know better.

Perhaps... I think that there needs to be some kind of middle way between 'we are right and they were wrong' and 'to each, their own'. I think we must be wary of cultural imperialism. On the other hand, I don't think that maximum toleration or acceptance is the way to go either.

For example... In some cultures when girls hit puberty they are married off to older men in their tribes. I think we should be wary of labeling such social practices (when they occur in those societies rather than our own) 'child abuse'. I think it is more likely that when that happens in a society where it is accepted that the girl isn't harmed as she would be when that happens in a society where it is not accepted (such as our own) and where it is labelled abusive (as in our own). Please note: I am NOT saying that parents should be allowed to marry off their 11 and 12 and 13 year old daughters in developed western nations - I'm just trying to illustrate that how harmed one is can PARTLY (though of course not FULLY) be determined by how society (and how we ourselves) view what has happened to us.

> We know now, from the results of a rather large body of research, that children need, deserve protection, validation, love and a lot of positive attention from their parents if they are to grow into healthy, functioning adults.

Well... We also know that children don't need this from their biological parents in particular. Some flourish in response to the care and attention of adopted parents, or grandparents, or siblings, or other members of the tribe... Cultures vary considerably with respect to how much care and attention from parents is feasible. If you are conceiving such that babies are popping out every 2 years you simply don't have enough time to spend that much of it with each and every of your kids... The western ideal of parental care isn't the only one and I'd be wary of interpreting research findings such that they are taken to suggest that it is...

Anthropologists and cross cultural developmental psychologists have critiqued psychoanalytic / psychodynamic theorists for being so western-centric.

> However, we also know now that parental behaviors that were socially accepted in the past have caused traumatic illness in people as they grew.

So you want to use the word 'abuse' to refer to events that cause traumatic illness? Do acts of nature like hurricane and tornado count as 'abuse' as well, or for an event to be 'abusive' does it require an agent (person) to be responsible for the act? Maybe accidents don't count (so maybe if a parent accidentally spills boiling water on her kid that isn't abuse) whereas intentional harms / malevolent intent does (so if the parent intends to damage / hurt her child then that is abuse).

Is that the thought?

In order for a person to be abused their abusers needed to have malevolent intent towards them - intentionally desiring to cause them insult / injury / harm etc?

If that is the thought then I was never abused. My mother did the best she could. When she hit me / hurt me / yelled at me I really think she wasn't really in control of her actions / emotions. I don't think she INTENTIONALLY was malevolent towards me...

> Abuse is abuse. I don't think that there is a lot of room for a fluid definition about whether certain acts are abusive. Frankly, I believe that choosing not to call certain events abuse is denial and dangerous because it can lead to a repeat.

So we should label hurricanes and tornadoes 'abuse' too - in order to prevent a repeat? If I call my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that she will not hurt me again? If I call my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that I will not do those things? If society calls my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that other people will not do those acts? I'm not sure that I follow...

My mother hit me.
My mother yelled at me.

I don't see why I'm in denial by choosing not to describe those events (that harmed me) as abuse.

We can agree that gorse is a bush that grows... While disagreeing whether gorse is a 'weed'... To say that gorse isn't a weed isn't to deny the existence of gorse or to deny that it is a plant. I don't see where 'denial' comes into this...

I am not talking about tribal cultures. The reason I mentioned the "past times and cultures" was because your post had referred to medeivil times. I do mean to refer to western culture.

Yes, I agree that cultural norms differ even within our own western society that we live in now. However, when I said that now we know better, I mean we, in our western culture, have documented the effects of child abuse.

I did not say biological parents and used the term parents loosely---it could have said caretakers, or parental figure. Nor did I say how much love, attention and care children need. BUT I remain firmly convinced that all children need some love, validation attention. It's the concept of the "good enough" parent that we are after here.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So you want to use the word 'abuse' to refer to events that cause traumatic illness?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No. I didn't say that.


</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Do acts of nature like hurricane and tornado count as 'abuse' as well, or for an event to be 'abusive' does it require an agent (person) to be responsible for the act?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I don't think a natural event would be considered abuse. I think abuse is a person-generated event.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
In order for a person to be abused their abusers needed to have malevolent intent towards them - intentionally desiring to cause them insult / injury / harm etc?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No I don't believe this to be true either. I think many people have suffered abuse at the hands of persons who didn't understand their actions. Nevertheless abuse occurred.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So we should label hurricanes and tornadoes 'abuse' too - in order to prevent a repeat? I

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, no these are natural disasters.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
My mother hit me.
My mother yelled at me.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I am so sorry. Only you can define your experience.

I think that what I was trying to say is that we have to be vigilant in the here and now in our culture toward acts of blatant child abuse--not cultural differences. There are all too many children who are suffering at the hands of those who think it's okay to bash them around or use their bodies. It isn't.

> I do mean to refer to western culture.

Okay... But different cultures (both currently and in history) tell us something about different ways our culture might have gone (with respect to what it values, and indeed with respect to what it considers 'abuse').

> when I said that now we know better, I mean we, in our western culture, have documented the effects of child abuse.

Right... That is controversial, though. See... We have documented effects of what certain things (such as hurricane, tornado, name calling, hitting etc) typically cause... But that doesn't make such acts acts of 'abuse' (as there are more harmful things than 'abuse' e.g., natural disaster, surviving a war). It really is important to note that abuse is not necessary for mental disorder... And that acts that we (in our current culture) consider' abusive' - are not sufficient for mental disorder, either.

> I did not say biological parents and used the term parents loosely---it could have said caretakers, or parental figure.

So there needs to be just one person who children attach to? Having a number of people (of the tribe) who are partially committed isn't enough for the prospect of having a healthy, adaptive, flourishing life???

>> So you want to use the word 'abuse' to refer to events that cause traumatic illness?
>No. I didn't say that.

Ok.

Even though post-traumatic stress disorder was originally intended to apply to 'victims' of natural disaster and to war veterans... Okay...

>> Do acts of nature like hurricane and tornado count as 'abuse' as well, or for an event to be 'abusive' does it require an agent (person) to be responsible for the act?
>I don't think a natural event would be considered abuse. I think abuse is a person-generated event.

Okay. So then abuse is not a cause of post-traumatic stress disorder (causes of that paradigmatically include natural disaster and surviving a war).

>> In order for a person to be abused their abusers needed to have malevolent intent towards them - intentionally desiring to cause them insult / injury / harm etc?
>No I don't believe this to be true either. I think many people have suffered abuse at the hands of persons who didn't understand their actions. Nevertheless abuse occurred.

Hmm.... Then what is the difference between acts caused by an (unknowing) agent and acts caused by a similarly unknowing environment (e.g., hurricanes, earthquake etc). If responsibility for the insult or injury isn't the differentiating factor then what is?


> I think that what I was trying to say is that we have to be vigilant in the here and now in our culture toward acts of blatant child abuse--not cultural differences.

But what I'm pointing towards is that acts that are considered 'blatent' in our times were positively revered in past times. Some cultures thought that incest was perfectly fine. Some cultures thought that marrying off ones pubescent daughter (at 11 or 13) was perfectly fine... Is it that we 'know better' or is it that we 'think different'? The concept of abuse has changed over time to become more expansive and also to comdemn more activities than were condemned in the past. Is it that we think we are 'better' (are more likely to have access to 'the truth') or is it that our perspective is 'one of many'?

You know Kim,

I don't know where you are going with this. I remain firm on the facst that incest is abuse. Hitting children is abuse. Children who can attach to SOMEONE have a far greater chance of surviving intact. Neurological development depends on attachment. In grad school I wrote a paper about a book, Genie, that told the tale of a child whose early years were spent in a godawful abusive home. She didn't develop language because of the abuse, lack of attachment, and ensuing neurological deficits.

Abuse is A cause of PTSD. Not the only cause. This is also the case with natural disasters, and wars, etc.

The thing to me that makes this all so sad is that children who live in a home here, now, in our western culture-- that may appear safe, are suffering from abuse. We need to protect them.

I do understand that there are other opinions about what is abuse, and what constitutes trauma. I don't portend to say that all abuse equals a mental dx. There many fully functioning survivors whose resilience carried them through.

There is some good information on where I am coming from in the following quote:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Anyone who has gone through a life-threatening event can develop PTSD. These events can include:

Combat or military exposure
Child sexual or physical abuse
Terrorist attacks
Sexual or physical assault
Serious accidents, such as a car wreck.
Natural disasters, such as a fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, or earthquake.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

This is from the National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Military Affairs.

Yes, it is a western, U.S. government agency that does not allow a lot of room for cultural habits that may engage in these activities that we believe are harmful to children. I think that is a good thing.

Yes, I know there are other opinions, habits, patterns, cultures in our wide and wonderful world. However, I feel it would be too invalidating to deny the experience of many, whose lives have been turned upside down.

You know, there are people out there who say the holocaust didn't happen. I don't listen to them either.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
MissCharlotte said:
You know Kim,

I don't know where you are going with this. I remain firm on the facst that incest is abuse. Hitting children is abuse. Children who can attach to SOMEONE have a far greater chance of surviving intact. Neurological development depends on attachment. In grad school I wrote a paper about a book, Genie, that told the tale of a child whose early years were spent in a godawful abusive home. She didn't develop language because of the abuse, lack of attachment, and ensuing neurological deficits.

Abuse is A cause of PTSD. Not the only cause. This is also the case with natural disasters, and wars, etc.

The thing to me that makes this all so sad is that children who live in a home here, now, in our western culture-- that may appear safe, are suffering from abuse. We need to protect them.

I do understand that there are other opinions about what is abuse, and what constitutes trauma. I don't portend to say that all abuse equals a mental dx. There many fully functioning survivors whose resilience carried them through.

There is some good information on where I am coming from in the following quote:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Anyone who has gone through a life-threatening event can develop PTSD. These events can include:

Combat or military exposure
Child sexual or physical abuse
Terrorist attacks
Sexual or physical assault
Serious accidents, such as a car wreck.
Natural disasters, such as a fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, or earthquake.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

This is from the National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Military Affairs.

Yes, it is a western, U.S. government agency that does not allow a lot of room for cultural habits that may engage in these activities that we believe are harmful to children. I think that is a good thing.

Yes, I know there are other opinions, habits, patterns, cultures in our wide and wonderful world. However, I feel it would be too invalidating to deny the experience of many, whose lives have been turned upside down.

You know, there are people out there who say the holocaust didn't happen. I don't listen to them either.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Hey,

I want to start out by thanking you for participating in this conversation with me. We may not agree - but that is okay. Life would be pretty boring if we only ever interacted with people who shared precisely our own perspective. I hope that this conversation isn't distressing for people - I really don't mean to cause distress, and I really thank you for participating in this.

> I don't know where you are going with this.

I should take some time to say as clearly as possible that I'm not at all condoning hitting children, being sexually involved with children, yelling at children, ignoring children etc. I'm also not at all suggesting or implying that we should alter our society such that these things are either tolerated or positively revered.

My thought is simply (Hacking's one - as I understand him) that ONE source of harm (and that is not at all to say the ONLY source of harm) is to apply 'victim', 'persecutor', 'abused', 'abuser' labels to people (either to oneself or to others).

> I remain firm on the facst that incest is abuse.

Yep. Ethicists used to site that as a 'moral universal' (something that was condemned by all cultures and all societies). Then they found some tribe somewhere where incest was common, so that had to go out the window. Turns out that that particular society was very small, though, and basically... If they hadn't practiced incest then they would have died out long ago. Not enough... Women, I think it was. So maybe... There is a degree of cultural relativity going on here... Maybe... Incest was okay in that particular society given their unusual circumstances.

> Hitting children is abuse.

How about smacking? A little tap on the bum? That one is still very controversial... Many feel that the state has no right whatsoever to interfere with parental discipline in the home (though you can't do it in the schools, to be sure).

(I'm actually against smacking, for the record - but it is controversial whether a tap on the bum constitutes 'abuse'. I'd say that there are alternative means of discipline that are less likely to result in harm and there should be a campaign to teach parents those alternative methods so they don't need to resort to smacking. But I guess I wouldn't go so far as to call a tap on the bum 'abuse').

> Children who can attach to SOMEONE have a far greater chance of surviving intact.

Yes, that is true. But that person doesn't need to be a parent. So... In cases of neglect... Is the parent responsible, in particular, or is it more that society has failed the child? In some cultures... Parents don't have a special role with respect to children's attachment (in indigenous maori culture, for example). The thought there is that... The best way to achieve a good 'fit' between attached and attachment figure is for it to be a mutual thing rather than something that 'should' happen between parents and offspring.

> In grad school I wrote a paper about a book, Genie, that told the tale of a child whose early years were spent in a godawful abusive home. She didn't develop language because of the abuse, lack of attachment, and ensuing neurological deficits.

I remember learning about that case. Universities campaigning for custody because they thought they had found a person who hadn't been exposed to language before they found her... This was back in the day where there was much controversy over whether there was a Chomskian 'innate language acquisition device' (LAD) that enabled us to learn syntax and grammer upon exposure to a language... Or whether acquisition of language was more stimulus driven (and hence required the relevant stimulus early on in order for people to be able to learn a language at all). The universities wanted custody because they wanted to see how they would fare with respect to teaching her how to talk... Could she acquire syntax? I remember some film clip where a psychologist had this gleam in his eye about finding her. They named her genie as in 'I dream of genie'. Unethical to involountarily confine and not talk to a person for many years so that experiment couldn't be done - but nature had provided them with a wonderful natural experiment - or so it was thought.

During the courtcase it emerged that there had always been something not quite right with genie (she had shown very early signs of developmental disability). Her parents said that that was why they involountarily confined her and didn't talk to her. She wasn't developing language. She wasn't developing normal social behaviors. They didn't know what to do... So they put her in a room somewhere and tried to keep taking care of her basic needs... That used to happen a lot with people who were intellectually handicapped / severely catatonic etc. At that point... The university psychologists lost interest (genie wasn't going to be showing them anything about the effects of a psychologically normal person not being immersed in a language). She was institutionalized. Not re-chained to the bed, to be sure, but locked up in an institution somewhere... I don't know what has happened to her now... Whether she has subsequently died, or what.

> Yes, it is a western, U.S. government agency that does not allow a lot of room for cultural habits that may engage in these activities that we believe are harmful to children.

But there are many more activities that have been found to be harmful to children. Feeding them junk food, not encouraging adequate exercise etc etc etc. Would you suggest that we extend our concept of abuse to embrace all of these as well? There also needs to be a 'type' and a 'token' distinction. If we pick a kind of thing (e.g., eating junk food) then some token individuals may be harmed whereas other token individuals may not be harmed. How many token individuals must be harmed (and what must the extent of the harm be) before we condemn the whole type as 'abuse'? I'm not sure... But I am fairly sure, indeed, that the concept of 'abuse' never used to apply to many of the things that it has come to apply to... And... I'm thinking there is something of a mixed blessing in that (remember we do in fact disapprove of, condemn, and punish many acts that we don't regard 'abusive').

> Yes, I know there are other opinions, habits, patterns, cultures in our wide and wonderful world. However, I feel it would be too invalidating to deny the experience of many, whose lives have been turned upside down.

So the thought is that if we say 'incest isn't child abuse' then it logically follows from that (or simply will follow inevitably as a matter of our psychology) that we are CONDONING incest? I don't see how that follows. There are many things (e.g., natural disaster, light taps on the bum) that we don't consider acts of 'abuse' - and we can consider that they aren't acts of 'abuse' while still lamenting that they are terrible things indeed and doing everything in our power to prevent their occurrence.

Calling something 'abuse' is not the ONLY way of going about social change...

And with that in mind, it is also important that we not invalidate the experiences of many whose lives are upside down who were not victims of abuse. It is getting to the point where 'abuse' is built into the very concept of a number of mental disorders. If you have x disorder than you fairly much MUST have been abused (or you are in denial). I think that attitude is more likely to harm those people. And... I'm not sure how 'abused' 'abuser' terminology (and assignment of malevolent intent in a lot of cases) assists those who are hurting...

> You know, there are people out there who say the holocaust didn't happen. I don't listen to them either.

A very senior professor at my home university resigned from his job at the university because a person was cut from the doctoral program because his thesis involved denying the holocaust. The senior professor wasn't a holocaust denier. He resigned not because he believed this persons thesis to be true - but because he believed this persons thesis should be assessed on its merits. If it turns out that he had done 'bad history' (as he most probably had) then he should fail because he had written a substandard thesis and NOT because of the particular thesis he was defending. I guess that was the thought. I basically... Agree with that. I'll listen to holocaust deniers as I'll listen to creationists and so on and so forth... The trouble is (as in anything) when people are so fixated on their being right such that they won't listen to or engage reasonably with alternative points of view.

Hey Kim,

You know I do so believe in the free exchange of ideas. However, there are some topics that I feel a moral responsibility for taking a stand on. One of them is child abuse (incest, physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, etc.) Another is listening to so called "holocaust deniers." I also stand up in the face of homophobia and racism. I come out on this end of the debate because I cannot bear to be part of something that might cause pain and harm to people.

Some conversations are best not aired IMO. I know, possibly pigheaded but my position nonetheless. So, I guess I would have been on the side of the administration who fired the professor.

In the 'for what it's worth' category, I don't think hitting, smacking, or tapping are appropriate ways to handle discipline of any child. People who hit their children need parenting classes.

Yeah, Genie failed to acquire syntax. The thesis of my paper was that because of her lack of attachment, the neurons needed for this development died off. When we are born we have all the neurons that we will need for a fully functioning life. As we grow, the neurons die off. Kind of a "usem or losem" scenario.

'nuff said.

Everything exists on a continuum. When someone starts to require regid definitions and to try to define "x" is always abuse and "y" is never abuse, etc., someone is going to have experienced something that is an exception to the rigid terms. Sometimes people need to look at their experiences and call it what it is. Sometimes being stuck with a label such as "victim" or "abuser" creates more damage (as when the label begins to define more of the person than the limited area of the person's life and experience where it applies, and it is assumed that the label is permanent and unchangeable).

Is spanking abuse? It depends. Where does it fit on the continuum, how do the parents use it, and how does it affect the child? A light swat to a two-year-old's bum to get their attention might be okay. When spankings occur every time the parents are angry, frustrated, scared, etc., and the parents don't know any other way of interacting with the child, that gets painful to see, and probably will have lasting effects on the child, and most people would call it abuse. The lack of other interactions could be neglect, and might be worse than the spankings. Most of the time spanking will be somewhere between these extremes, and may or may not be abusive.

We are very complex beings, and we are all unique. If a person has a psych condition, then something didn't go the way it was meant to at some point in their life. Quite often some kind of traumatic event has interfered with development in some way. It would be interesting to break it down and see what kinds of events, at what age, what the person's natural resilience or predispositions were, what support was available, etc. But that is such a huge question that it will need to be investigated piece by piece.

> there are some topics that I feel a moral responsibility for taking a stand on.

Yeah. But WHY do you feel a moral responsibility to take the particular stand you have taken? Is it because you feel that if we say that certain acts may or may not be acts of abuse committed by abusers against victims then - that is to undermine or invalidate the suffering of people who experienced that and / or that is to condone the act?

I don't think I invalidate or deny the suffering of people... But maybe I'm wrong on that. I also don't condone acts like hitting or calling names etc. So... I guess I'm not really seeing that we disagree with respect to that...

> I cannot bear to be part of something that might cause pain and harm to people.

Yeah. One of the things I'm interested in, though, is that harm that MAY be caused to people by our encouraging them (or by our encouraging ourselves) to see things in 'persecutor', 'victim', 'abuse' terms. I guess... I'm looking out for the harms, too.

> Some conversations are best not aired IMO.

But if they aren't aired then we won't get the chance to see whether something dodgey is going on with lines of reasoning. For example... It was once found that yellow people were smarter than white people were smarter than black people. What to do with that finding? One thing you could do (one thing that was done) was to use that to justify implementing certain social policies - where it was pointless to educate the innately stupid and where one didn't want ones country to be full of stupid immigrants. Another thing you could do (something that people often suggest) is to just sweep this finding under the rug somewhere and forget about it - because it simply is too horrific. Another thing you could do (what was eventually done) is say to yourself - 'this really doesn't sound right to me, I'm pretty sure things aren't that way' and look at the studies a little bit harder. The tests of 'IQ' were problematic (culturally biased so that recent immigrants were severely disadvantaged). The population sample was problematic (recent immigrants aren't representative of the rest of their race). The inference from the finding to 'innately genetic' is problematic as they didn't adequately control for (what have been subsequently been shown to be) massive environmental confounds like level of education and social class.

It was holding the finding up to scrutiny that enabled us to make progress on this issue. We came to learn that environmental circumstances play a bigger role than heredity and now we try and implement that in social policy - by providing education for all. That wouldn't have come to be if we had refused to face the finding and wonder about 'how come'?

> The thesis of my paper was that because of her lack of attachment, the neurons needed for this development died off.

Ah. Well... The trouble is that Genies parents said that she never was a normal infant / child. So... It emerged that she was severely developmentally / intellectually disordered BEFORE she was subjected to her confinement and isolation. Her parents said they isolated her precisely because she was not normal. So... Is it the chicken or the egg? Did attachment and language fail because she was already disordered, or did the absence of attachment and language result in her disorder? The initial excitement was over the thought that she was the second... During the courtcase it emerged that it was an example of the first - and hence the loss of interest in, and ultimate institutionalization of Genie...

(Of course there is OTHER evidence out there that early experiences have an impact on the pathways in the brain that are formed and that it can be hard for people to break out of those habitual ways of thinking / feeling / relating. Genie doesn't support that over nativist / innate alternative theories of neural development, though...).