1) Firstly a picky one: you say "This idea helps to redeem the word “trauma,” which, some have argued, has been cheapened to cover nearly anything" and in the very same text place bombs, videos of loved ones' deaths AND REPEATEDLY SEEING AN EX WITH A NEW PARTNER in the same potentially unbearable/injurious beyond repair or benefit group. Was this a trick to catch your readers or do you genuinely not think that one of those things is not like the others?
2) So we have three (maybe four) categories of unpleasant experiences: such that are subject to full healing without longer term impairment; causing long term impairment; causing long term improvement/adaptive learning but without which we'll be fine too; and possibly also ones that are actually necessary for thriving.
While the second category is the standard trauma, I'd propose that the third category can also lead to widespread dysfunction not because the original adaptation is ineffective,but because it becomes so ingrained that it's hard to adapt to a changed environment. We could argue that this being stuck is effectively a form of second category, but this way we lose a distinction between a soldier who falls apart after a period of combat and one who adapts well to that situation but can't shake those new habits on return to safety (without developing PTSD).
And then we have a more ethical than functional point: how much importance should we place on category one: neither beneficial nor harmful but unpleasant. To use an example: even if corporal punishment wasn't long term damaging, we STILL shouldn't beat our children because making another person suffer if there are alternatives is a Bad Thing to Do.
3) And finally, and I think very importantly for practical application of this thinking: I'm not sure we can clearly draw the line objectively. In your
footnote 4 there's a clue to why not: the effects will depend on the person. The same thing that's injurious for one child or young adult will be a challenge with positive effects or at least ultimately harmless for another. And while I'm sure that cultural framing of life events matters A LOT, individual differences in sensitivity and resilience (because of genetics/wiring and because of personal history) will also make a big difference.
On 1), that’s a fair point. It probably speaks more to my own psychology (see your point 3) than anything else. It wasn’t a trick as much as an attempt to say—with indifferent success—that traumas do have a number of different sources. But, fair enough. On 2) I am sympathetic to this way of breaking things out as well as your ethical perspective. To be candid, I’d just like to see more discussion of this sort of framing. But, yes, I think your view and my view both point to the second category as being special and the empirical agenda should be identifying what belongs in that category. On 3) I also agree with you. The issue of (large) individual differences makes the whole enterprise vexing. If only people were more similar, clinical psychology—and, heck, the rest of psychology—would be a lot easier.
Great article. It reminds me of wildlife, like feeding dolphins in the bay where I live in Miami. It's not a good thing to do because dolphins may depend on humans for feeding and lose their motivation to hunt. Humans often take advantage of other's empathy to their detriment.
Good take. Few thoughts.
1) Firstly a picky one: you say "This idea helps to redeem the word “trauma,” which, some have argued, has been cheapened to cover nearly anything" and in the very same text place bombs, videos of loved ones' deaths AND REPEATEDLY SEEING AN EX WITH A NEW PARTNER in the same potentially unbearable/injurious beyond repair or benefit group. Was this a trick to catch your readers or do you genuinely not think that one of those things is not like the others?
2) So we have three (maybe four) categories of unpleasant experiences: such that are subject to full healing without longer term impairment; causing long term impairment; causing long term improvement/adaptive learning but without which we'll be fine too; and possibly also ones that are actually necessary for thriving.
While the second category is the standard trauma, I'd propose that the third category can also lead to widespread dysfunction not because the original adaptation is ineffective,but because it becomes so ingrained that it's hard to adapt to a changed environment. We could argue that this being stuck is effectively a form of second category, but this way we lose a distinction between a soldier who falls apart after a period of combat and one who adapts well to that situation but can't shake those new habits on return to safety (without developing PTSD).
And then we have a more ethical than functional point: how much importance should we place on category one: neither beneficial nor harmful but unpleasant. To use an example: even if corporal punishment wasn't long term damaging, we STILL shouldn't beat our children because making another person suffer if there are alternatives is a Bad Thing to Do.
3) And finally, and I think very importantly for practical application of this thinking: I'm not sure we can clearly draw the line objectively. In your
footnote 4 there's a clue to why not: the effects will depend on the person. The same thing that's injurious for one child or young adult will be a challenge with positive effects or at least ultimately harmless for another. And while I'm sure that cultural framing of life events matters A LOT, individual differences in sensitivity and resilience (because of genetics/wiring and because of personal history) will also make a big difference.
On 1), that’s a fair point. It probably speaks more to my own psychology (see your point 3) than anything else. It wasn’t a trick as much as an attempt to say—with indifferent success—that traumas do have a number of different sources. But, fair enough. On 2) I am sympathetic to this way of breaking things out as well as your ethical perspective. To be candid, I’d just like to see more discussion of this sort of framing. But, yes, I think your view and my view both point to the second category as being special and the empirical agenda should be identifying what belongs in that category. On 3) I also agree with you. The issue of (large) individual differences makes the whole enterprise vexing. If only people were more similar, clinical psychology—and, heck, the rest of psychology—would be a lot easier.
Great article. It reminds me of wildlife, like feeding dolphins in the bay where I live in Miami. It's not a good thing to do because dolphins may depend on humans for feeding and lose their motivation to hunt. Humans often take advantage of other's empathy to their detriment.