One aspect of McNally’s book “Remembering Trauma” I found interesting was how many variations are encompassed by post traumatic stress disorder and its symptoms. I believe it is far too complicated to ‘pigeon hole’ a disorder that has so many different causes AND effects and can manifest itself in completely different ways, depending on the subject. I found the DSM-IV definition for traumatic stressors (“actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self and others that produce intense fear, helplessness, or horror”) incredibly limiting. As McNally goes on to explain, people can develop PTSD or symptoms of the disorder by witnessing traumatic events occurring to another person- especially if they are the cause of the trauma (such as war crimes and torture). Likewise, people have been through horrendous experiences that are definitely encompassed in the DSM-IV definition, and yet they never develop PTSD. Just this fact shows how difficult and controversial the study of trauma has become. It seems to me almost impossible to develop one, generic definition and explanation of PTSD as it is so specific to the individual. McNally goes on to describe studies that revealed personality differences in subjects who developed PTSD, yet even this information is difficult to obtain because one cannot inflict traumatic stressors on a subject and thus cannot have a controlled experiment where they can easily obtain pre-event information on the subject. In these cases, experimenters were able to obtain school records from before students had been sent to Vietnam. Still, it is most likely true that we would be able to obtain much more information about the chances of developing PTSD if controlled experiments could be conducted. As a result, there is still little known about the individual differences that may affect development of PTSD.
A couple of study groups were mentioned that researched the relationship between PTSD and IQ. They found that those who fought in Vietnam with an average precombat IQ were more likely to develop PTSD than those with an above average precombat IQ. Their reasoning was that IQ represents problem solving abilities and dealing with a frightening situation afterwards is a problem that needs to be solved. I’m not convinced that IQ has a great deal to do with the development of PTSD. The IQ’s of the soldiers had a mean average of 106.3 for those who developed PTSD and 119 for those who did not. Perhaps it’s because I’m just biased against IQ tests in general, but the numbers are not that different. Do people with genius IQs never experience PTSD? I don’t think that being intelligent means a person can’t have a reaction that affects the person mentally when they have come across a horrifying experience.
In 1988 Bass and Davis wrote a book and in it said that if someone thinks he has been abused and shows symptoms, then he has. Those who were curious if their memories were real were assured that “the progression always goes from suspicion to confirmation.” This doesn’t exactly make sense since someone who initially feels absolutely sure that something happened to them can be coaxed into thinking it was his imagination. It is interesting that the a theory for the cure for trauma is traumatic memories should be recovered in order for healing to occur and trying to suppress unwanted thoughts will make the memories more present. I would think that people would be happy not to have these involuntary thoughts in their heads, and yet people are told that they will feel better once they think about them. Some believe trauma can cause MPD and this disorder is a rescuer because it allows the main personality to escape from having to think of painful memories consciously. Another person takes over to deal with the pain. If the mind is defending the body by suppressing the memories, why do we try to go against the suppression and say remembering is the way to feel better.I don’t understand why some people are unable to forget traumatic experiences and so their memories haunt them while others automatically repress these memories all together
I found it especially interesting that “Only 10 percent of those who were 4 years old when Kennedy was assassinated report a flashbulb memory for the event, whereas about 70 percent of those who were 7 years old at the time report one” (54). Of course I instantly linked this finding to the discussion of childhood amnesia on page 74. The psychologists Mark Howe and Mary Courage hold that childhood amnesia is due to the underdeveloped sense of self in children. They argue that because this sense of self is essential to the “emergence of autobiographical memory,” young children, who have very little or no sense of self, are unable to incorporate events into their “autobiography,” (44). I related this to the possible autobiographical characteristics of flashbulb memories. Does a stronger sense of one’s identity, combined with the the relevance of a possible flashbulb memory inducing experience to one’s identity, increase the chance that a flashbulb memory will form? I believe that’s the case, as the things that are remembered, in other situations at least, seem to be most relevant to the specific self. It was also found that the encoding of noteworthy personal experiences resulted in more flashbulb memories than that of noteworthy public events (Rubin and Kozin “found that only 3 percent of the flashbulb memories described by their subjects concerned events of national importance”)(54). Of course it depends on what is going on in one’s life, but events relevant to the self seem to be the ones that would produce a flashbulb memory. It’s also interesting to note that flashbulb memories are not necessarily accurate representations of the actual event, as they were once thought to be, even though they often seem as, or close to as vivid, as the original experience. I wonder, perhaps, if the reconstructive processes of flashbulb memories are vulnerable to the reconstructive processes of all other memories: an interaction between the initial encoding of the experience and the needs of the current self who is retrieving the memory. Therefore, as one’s self changes, do flashbulb memories change to accommodate that self? I can’t help but draw a connection between flashbulb memories and PTSD, as PTSD seems to consist of what could be understood as flashbulb memories, but only more extreme (flashbacks, etc). Flashbacks are basically an extreme form of memory, as they are reconstructive as well (117). It seems however, that memories are often are constructed to the advantage of the one remembering. Flashbulb memories, even (I’m guessing) are reconstructed in order to incorporate into one’s current identity. It doesn’t seem, however, that flashbacks, in any way, meet the needs of the PTSD patient, however they are reconstructed in such a way for a reason. What is it?
While many people believe that the intensity and sensory awareness felt during traumatic experiences renders them unable to be expelled from the mind, others express belief in that traumatic events are so difficult to cope with that they are exiled from consciousness, only to be remembered many years later with the assistance of recovered memory techniques. Throughout the 1980s, increased suspicions of child abuse in day care centers and nursery schools throughout America led the researchers of trauma and its effect on autobiographical memories to become engulfed in controversy. Although children rarely disclosed their abuse to any authority figure such as a parent, teacher, or police officer, symptoms such as odd sexualized behavior and recurring nightmares were often taken as an indication that sexual abuse had, in fact, occurred. Nearing the end of the 1980s, a failure to disclose sexual abuse transpired into an incapability to remember the abuse or fear of retaliation by the abuser, thus leading many therapists to believe that many women were victims of childhood abuse but repressed these memories, only physically demonstrating symptoms such as depression or dissociation which was interpreted by psychoanalysts as indicative of childhood abuse even if they had no memory of it ever occurring. The retrieval of these so called repressed memories was deemed vital for the recovery of the patient, however, as Richard J. McNally makes note in Remembering Trauma, many survivors of abuse, in the course of trying to retrieve these memories, develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the rate of 28 percent to 100 percent (2003: 246). I found it particularly interesting that in trying to assist in the recovery of patients that have suffered through traumatizing events that they can not remember, “therapists are unwittingly inducing the very disorder that they intend to treat,” (McNally 2003, 246). Using certain techniques such as trance-work, dream interpretation, work with one’s physical self, group work with other survivors of the same type of event, guided imagery exercises leading patients to visualize imagined similar situations of abuse, and hypnosis, therapists attempted to aid in the remembrance of “forgotten” traumatic events. In 1992, after alarmingly high numbers of individuals had been reporting that they had recovered memories of abuse during recovered memory therapy, a group of accused parents founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation claiming that the special techniques designed to aid in the recollection of repressed memories most often result in the unintentional fabrication of persuasive, yet false, memories of being abused as a child. Knowing that they had never abused their children, the founders of FMSF were infuriated that the therapists creating false memories in countless numbers of patients were “destroying families and harming patients while attempting to heal them” (McNally 2003: 15). Under particularly intense scrutiny was the method of hypnosis, which has been shown to promote the creation of false memories while psychologically increasing the confidence of subjects that the memories they are recalling are real. In response to the theory of false memory syndrome becoming popularized as well as the heightened criticism of recovered memory therapy, the number of lawsuits filed on the mere basis of these recovered memories dropped dramatically, and by the late 1990s, many of such lawsuits against alleged abusers were being dropped while more and more patients and families who had been damaged by the false memories and accusations were filing lawsuits against their, or their children’s, therapists.
I found the first few chapters of Remembering Trauma to be a fascinating method of providing evidence for and findings the qualms with three different arguments for how people remember trauma. I was sufficiently stunned by some of the claims which appeared to shape history- not simply in a clinical or scientific realm, but literal history in terms of facts which affected individuals, their relationships, their states and their country’s legislation. Some statements which truly baffled me while reading these chapters were E. Sue Blume’s estimation that “more than half of all women are survivors of childhood sexual trauma” (p. 6) or the claims about “Post-Incest Syndrome”. Another was “If you don’t remember your abuse, you are not alone. Many women don’t have memories, ad some never get memories. This doesn’t mean they weren’t abused” (p.7). I couldn’t help but wonder how one was to tell if they were allegedly abused if they cannot manifest any symptoms or memories. What is the point of making these claims? What are we trying to prove? It seemed to me that more than empowering women this was calling into question their credibility by crying wolf. I was amazed that state laws would be overturned with virtually no evidence for false memories or repressed memories based practically on pop-literature on a phenomenon that may not even exist. Another possibility I thought, if there was in fact no evidence for the creation of false memories would be a case for the power of the media. Perhaps images seen on television or discourses heard on the radio would catalyze transposable thoughts. Past studies have shown the influence of the media on the accuracy of memories and I wonder if studies could go so far as to make a case for ‘mixing up’ an individuals story with the one she saw on TV. I was also perplexed by the diagnosis of this pathological ASD disorder. Having never heard of it myself, I wonder, if the symptoms regress after a month, whether there is a point on diagnosing patients with this? Another interesting diagnosis was regarding multiple personality disorder (MPD) and how severe abuse histories have been so closely liked with developing alternative personalities to accommodate memories with which the “main” personality or “host” personality cannot deal. I was also interested to read McNally’s point) stating that not only does hypnosis not improve memory but it can instill confidence in the creation of further false memories (Steblay and Bothwell 1994). I’m surprised by the influence of these psychotherapists and their ability to harm as much as heal. I wonder about the importance of getting the message out there to them to protect their patients instead of filling them with possibilities instead of facts.
It seems PTSD and trauma have ambiguous definitions and more research is needed to further define these terms. PTSD as described and investigated by McNally demonstrates an incredible amount of symptoms and exceptions. They are mainly disorders of memory and produces stress, but the topic is relatively new that methods to cure PTSD are experimental (for instance behavioral therapy does not necessarily prove effective for everyone). The one thing I noted about PTSD is that it can affect anyone in any situation. McNally described both small and large scale PTSD from miscarriages to war combat. PTSD is a very serious mental disorder and involves intrusive recollections as well as physical stress of rapid heartbeats, sweating, shivering, panic attacks, etc. How can we tell there will actually be a cure or remedy for PTSD? Are placebos the right direction researchers are headed? How do we know we can cure PTSD? I really appreciate McNally’s specificity in defining terms and explaining both sides of different issues. For example, the difference between a victim and survivor is really stimulating. He explains a victim as an individual not to blame for their misfortune in their traumatic event and survivor as the individual progressing to be resilient and strong to overcome adversity. The second thought-provoking distinction is between mortal and moral threats in individuals. The example McNally uses is intriguing, adding the difference between fear and guilt/shame. When faced with a difficult task like combat in war, which way would we lean, moral or mortal? My conscious or my existence? Lastly, I found the last sentence of chapter four bizarre and wonder how this could happen. Individuals can lose conciousness during a traumatic event but can develop reexperiencing symptoms even if they never consciously experience. So, they lose conciousness at some point and re-remember it or reexperience it physically, even though they don’t remember the actual event or have no recollection of it happening to them. Could there be a glitch between episodic and procedural memory? How common is this?
Claire Rigney Remembering Trauma The main focus in these first four chapters, appeared primarily to be on types of trauma coming from an outside event or set of stimuli being internalized by someone, such as those causing PTSD. However, it would also be interesting to learn more about the effects in which trauma from psychiatric, and perhaps more intrinsically chemical illness, has on the brain and how they differ. This was brought to mind, not only when reading the section, “Does Traumatic Stress Damage the Brain?,” but also with the recurring subject of individuals with PTSD experiencing symptoms as a result of stimulus related to the traumatic event (sounds, sights etc.). What is interesting, though, in a case such as schizophrenia, is that there could be, within someone with this disorder, traumatic experiences which only take place within the person, and that the source is within, completely independent of any external cause. It seems more likely this population would only have memory to memory to rely on( if even that) and not external cues. Therefore, would they will be less likely to re-live the trauma? It isn’t necessarily that simple, but it would be interesting to learn more about how the differences between treating trauma in these two diagnostic categories differ, or if there really is a significant difference, aside from means of recovering these experiences. On the topic of disorders, and what characterizes them, the fact that it is completely normal for humans to experience pain and fear in many situations (which is mentioned in the first chapter) brings up the interesting question: when does a traumatic experience become a disorder? Obviously the DSM III answers this with its set of criteria for PTSD, however, as we read, the DSM III was not set in stone (hence the DSM-IV). In addition, there were disagreements as to the criteria one needed to meet to be diagnosed with a particular condition, or even what disorders should be included, such as “post-Vietnam syndrome.” This, to me, supports the fluidity of these disorders/labels and how that can become an issue when providing or receiving a therapeutic intervention.
McNally describes the nature of PTSD as it occurs in individuals, populations, and as qualified in the DSM-IV. The controversy/hesitation surrounding PTSD makes definitive statements about it difficult, making McNally's mention of the predictive indicators interesting. It is mentioned that POWs from the Vietnam War, upon release, were not found to exhibit signs of PTSD. This was found despite the fact that the POWs suffered what McNally described as an objectively "traumatic" experience. I guess my curiosity is in the individuals that one might expect to exhibit signs of PTSD, but never do, and how they might compare with individuals that would otherwise be described as having PTSD. The absence of PTSD in some individuals (where possibly expected)is a reminder of the caution of attaching a cause to PTSD. The definition of a trauma that can encourage PTSD is broad, and possibly walks a fine line between the subjective and the objective. If this is the case, then it seems as if a greater understanding might be achieved in examining the populations that do not suffer from PTSD where one might anticipate its presence. With that, how can the way in which PTSD is measured be more discriminating and conclusive?
Thanks for sharing this information. I really like your blog post very much. You have really shared a informative and interesting blog post with people.. Hyperthymesia Causes
9 comments:
One aspect of McNally’s book “Remembering Trauma” I found interesting was how many variations are encompassed by post traumatic stress disorder and its symptoms. I believe it is far too complicated to ‘pigeon hole’ a disorder that has so many different causes AND effects and can manifest itself in completely different ways, depending on the subject. I found the DSM-IV definition for traumatic stressors (“actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self and others that produce intense fear, helplessness, or horror”) incredibly limiting. As McNally goes on to explain, people can develop PTSD or symptoms of the disorder by witnessing traumatic events occurring to another person- especially if they are the cause of the trauma (such as war crimes and torture). Likewise, people have been through horrendous experiences that are definitely encompassed in the DSM-IV definition, and yet they never develop PTSD. Just this fact shows how difficult and controversial the study of trauma has become. It seems to me almost impossible to develop one, generic definition and explanation of PTSD as it is so specific to the individual. McNally goes on to describe studies that revealed personality differences in subjects who developed PTSD, yet even this information is difficult to obtain because one cannot inflict traumatic stressors on a subject and thus cannot have a controlled experiment where they can easily obtain pre-event information on the subject. In these cases, experimenters were able to obtain school records from before students had been sent to Vietnam. Still, it is most likely true that we would be able to obtain much more information about the chances of developing PTSD if controlled experiments could be conducted. As a result, there is still little known about the individual differences that may affect development of PTSD.
Remembering Trauma
A couple of study groups were mentioned that researched the relationship between PTSD and IQ. They found that those who fought in Vietnam with an average precombat IQ were more likely to develop PTSD than those with an above average precombat IQ. Their reasoning was that IQ represents problem solving abilities and dealing with a frightening situation afterwards is a problem that needs to be solved. I’m not convinced that IQ has a great deal to do with the development of PTSD. The IQ’s of the soldiers had a mean average of 106.3 for those who developed PTSD and 119 for those who did not. Perhaps it’s because I’m just biased against IQ tests in general, but the numbers are not that different. Do people with genius IQs never experience PTSD? I don’t think that being intelligent means a person can’t have a reaction that affects the person mentally when they have come across a horrifying experience.
In 1988 Bass and Davis wrote a book and in it said that if someone thinks he has been abused and shows symptoms, then he has. Those who were curious if their memories were real were assured that “the progression always goes from suspicion to confirmation.” This doesn’t exactly make sense since someone who initially feels absolutely sure that something happened to them can be coaxed into thinking it was his imagination. It is interesting that the a theory for the cure for trauma is traumatic memories should be recovered in order for healing to occur and trying to suppress unwanted thoughts will make the memories more present. I would think that people would be happy not to have these involuntary thoughts in their heads, and yet people are told that they will feel better once they think about them. Some believe trauma can cause MPD and this disorder is a rescuer because it allows the main personality to escape from having to think of painful memories consciously. Another person takes over to deal with the pain. If the mind is defending the body by suppressing the memories, why do we try to go against the suppression and say remembering is the way to feel better.I don’t understand why some people are unable to forget traumatic experiences and so their memories haunt them while others automatically repress these memories all together
I found it especially interesting that “Only 10 percent of those who were 4 years old when Kennedy was assassinated report a flashbulb memory for the event, whereas about 70 percent of those who were 7 years old at the time report one” (54). Of course I instantly linked this finding to the discussion of childhood amnesia on page 74. The psychologists Mark Howe and Mary Courage hold that childhood amnesia is due to the underdeveloped sense of self in children. They argue that because this sense of self is essential to the “emergence of autobiographical memory,” young children, who have very little or no sense of self, are unable to incorporate events into their “autobiography,” (44). I related this to the possible autobiographical characteristics of flashbulb memories. Does a stronger sense of one’s identity, combined with the the relevance of a possible flashbulb memory inducing experience to one’s identity, increase the chance that a flashbulb memory will form? I believe that’s the case, as the things that are remembered, in other situations at least, seem to be most relevant to the specific self. It was also found that the encoding of noteworthy personal experiences resulted in more flashbulb memories than that of noteworthy public events (Rubin and Kozin “found that only 3 percent of the flashbulb memories described by their subjects concerned events of national importance”)(54). Of course it depends on what is going on in one’s life, but events relevant to the self seem to be the ones that would produce a flashbulb memory. It’s also interesting to note that flashbulb memories are not necessarily accurate representations of the actual event, as they were once thought to be, even though they often seem as, or close to as vivid, as the original experience. I wonder, perhaps, if the reconstructive processes of flashbulb memories are vulnerable to the reconstructive processes of all other memories: an interaction between the initial encoding of the experience and the needs of the current self who is retrieving the memory. Therefore, as one’s self changes, do flashbulb memories change to accommodate that self?
I can’t help but draw a connection between flashbulb memories and PTSD, as PTSD seems to consist of what could be understood as flashbulb memories, but only more extreme (flashbacks, etc). Flashbacks are basically an extreme form of memory, as they are reconstructive as well (117). It seems however, that memories are often are constructed to the advantage of the one remembering. Flashbulb memories, even (I’m guessing) are reconstructed in order to incorporate into one’s current identity. It doesn’t seem, however, that flashbacks, in any way, meet the needs of the PTSD patient, however they are reconstructed in such a way for a reason. What is it?
While many people believe that the intensity and sensory awareness felt during traumatic experiences renders them unable to be expelled from the mind, others express belief in that traumatic events are so difficult to cope with that they are exiled from consciousness, only to be remembered many years later with the assistance of recovered memory techniques. Throughout the 1980s, increased suspicions of child abuse in day care centers and nursery schools throughout America led the researchers of trauma and its effect on autobiographical memories to become engulfed in controversy. Although children rarely disclosed their abuse to any authority figure such as a parent, teacher, or police officer, symptoms such as odd sexualized behavior and recurring nightmares were often taken as an indication that sexual abuse had, in fact, occurred. Nearing the end of the 1980s, a failure to disclose sexual abuse transpired into an incapability to remember the abuse or fear of retaliation by the abuser, thus leading many therapists to believe that many women were victims of childhood abuse but repressed these memories, only physically demonstrating symptoms such as depression or dissociation which was interpreted by psychoanalysts as indicative of childhood abuse even if they had no memory of it ever occurring. The retrieval of these so called repressed memories was deemed vital for the recovery of the patient, however, as Richard J. McNally makes note in Remembering Trauma, many survivors of abuse, in the course of trying to retrieve these memories, develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the rate of 28 percent to 100 percent (2003: 246). I found it particularly interesting that in trying to assist in the recovery of patients that have suffered through traumatizing events that they can not remember, “therapists are unwittingly inducing the very disorder that they intend to treat,” (McNally 2003, 246). Using certain techniques such as trance-work, dream interpretation, work with one’s physical self, group work with other survivors of the same type of event, guided imagery exercises leading patients to visualize imagined similar situations of abuse, and hypnosis, therapists attempted to aid in the remembrance of “forgotten” traumatic events. In 1992, after alarmingly high numbers of individuals had been reporting that they had recovered memories of abuse during recovered memory therapy, a group of accused parents founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation claiming that the special techniques designed to aid in the recollection of repressed memories most often result in the unintentional fabrication of persuasive, yet false, memories of being abused as a child. Knowing that they had never abused their children, the founders of FMSF were infuriated that the therapists creating false memories in countless numbers of patients were “destroying families and harming patients while attempting to heal them” (McNally 2003: 15). Under particularly intense scrutiny was the method of hypnosis, which has been shown to promote the creation of false memories while psychologically increasing the confidence of subjects that the memories they are recalling are real. In response to the theory of false memory syndrome becoming popularized as well as the heightened criticism of recovered memory therapy, the number of lawsuits filed on the mere basis of these recovered memories dropped dramatically, and by the late 1990s, many of such lawsuits against alleged abusers were being dropped while more and more patients and families who had been damaged by the false memories and accusations were filing lawsuits against their, or their children’s, therapists.
I found the first few chapters of Remembering Trauma to be a fascinating method of providing evidence for and findings the qualms with three different arguments for how people remember trauma. I was sufficiently stunned by some of the claims which appeared to shape history- not simply in a clinical or scientific realm, but literal history in terms of facts which affected individuals, their relationships, their states and their country’s legislation. Some statements which truly baffled me while reading these chapters were E. Sue Blume’s estimation that “more than half of all women are survivors of childhood sexual trauma” (p. 6) or the claims about “Post-Incest Syndrome”. Another was “If you don’t remember your abuse, you are not alone. Many women don’t have memories, ad some never get memories. This doesn’t mean they weren’t abused” (p.7). I couldn’t help but wonder how one was to tell if they were allegedly abused if they cannot manifest any symptoms or memories. What is the point of making these claims? What are we trying to prove? It seemed to me that more than empowering women this was calling into question their credibility by crying wolf. I was amazed that state laws would be overturned with virtually no evidence for false memories or repressed memories based practically on pop-literature on a phenomenon that may not even exist.
Another possibility I thought, if there was in fact no evidence for the creation of false memories would be a case for the power of the media. Perhaps images seen on television or discourses heard on the radio would catalyze transposable thoughts. Past studies have shown the influence of the media on the accuracy of memories and I wonder if studies could go so far as to make a case for ‘mixing up’ an individuals story with the one she saw on TV. I was also perplexed by the diagnosis of this pathological ASD disorder. Having never heard of it myself, I wonder, if the symptoms regress after a month, whether there is a point on diagnosing patients with this? Another interesting diagnosis was regarding multiple personality disorder (MPD) and how severe abuse histories have been so closely liked with developing alternative personalities to accommodate memories with which the “main” personality or “host” personality cannot deal.
I was also interested to read McNally’s point) stating that not only does hypnosis not improve memory but it can instill confidence in the creation of further false memories (Steblay and Bothwell 1994). I’m surprised by the influence of these psychotherapists and their ability to harm as much as heal. I wonder about the importance of getting the message out there to them to protect their patients instead of filling them with possibilities instead of facts.
It seems PTSD and trauma have ambiguous definitions and more research is needed to further define these terms. PTSD as described and investigated by McNally demonstrates an incredible amount of symptoms and exceptions. They are mainly disorders of memory and produces stress, but the topic is relatively new that methods to cure PTSD are experimental (for instance behavioral therapy does not necessarily prove effective for everyone). The one thing I noted about PTSD is that it can affect anyone in any situation. McNally described both small and large scale PTSD from miscarriages to war combat. PTSD is a very serious mental disorder and involves intrusive recollections as well as physical stress of rapid heartbeats, sweating, shivering, panic attacks, etc. How can we tell there will actually be a cure or remedy for PTSD? Are placebos the right direction researchers are headed? How do we know we can cure PTSD?
I really appreciate McNally’s specificity in defining terms and explaining both sides of different issues. For example, the difference between a victim and survivor is really stimulating. He explains a victim as an individual not to blame for their misfortune in their traumatic event and survivor as the individual progressing to be resilient and strong to overcome adversity. The second thought-provoking distinction is between mortal and moral threats in individuals. The example McNally uses is intriguing, adding the difference between fear and guilt/shame. When faced with a difficult task like combat in war, which way would we lean, moral or mortal? My conscious or my existence?
Lastly, I found the last sentence of chapter four bizarre and wonder how this could happen. Individuals can lose conciousness during a traumatic event but can develop reexperiencing symptoms even if they never consciously experience. So, they lose conciousness at some point and re-remember it or reexperience it physically, even though they don’t remember the actual event or have no recollection of it happening to them. Could there be a glitch between episodic and procedural memory? How common is this?
Claire Rigney
Remembering Trauma
The main focus in these first four chapters, appeared primarily to be on types of trauma coming from an outside event or set of stimuli being internalized by someone, such as those causing PTSD. However, it would also be interesting to learn more about the effects in which trauma from psychiatric, and perhaps more intrinsically chemical illness, has on the brain and how they differ. This was brought to mind, not only when reading the section, “Does Traumatic Stress Damage the Brain?,” but also with the recurring subject of individuals with PTSD experiencing symptoms as a result of stimulus related to the traumatic event (sounds, sights etc.). What is interesting, though, in a case such as schizophrenia, is that there could be, within someone with this disorder, traumatic experiences which only take place within the person, and that the source is within, completely independent of any external cause. It seems more likely this population would only have memory to memory to rely on( if even that) and not external cues. Therefore, would they will be less likely to re-live the trauma? It isn’t necessarily that simple, but it would be interesting to learn more about how the differences between treating trauma in these two diagnostic categories differ, or if there really is a significant difference, aside from means of recovering these experiences.
On the topic of disorders, and what characterizes them, the fact that it is completely normal for humans to experience pain and fear in many situations (which is mentioned in the first chapter) brings up the interesting question: when does a traumatic experience become a disorder? Obviously the DSM III answers this with its set of criteria for PTSD, however, as we read, the DSM III was not set in stone (hence the DSM-IV). In addition, there were disagreements as to the criteria one needed to meet to be diagnosed with a particular condition, or even what disorders should be included, such as “post-Vietnam syndrome.” This, to me, supports the fluidity of these disorders/labels and how that can become an issue when providing or receiving a therapeutic intervention.
McNally describes the nature of PTSD as it occurs in individuals, populations, and as qualified in the DSM-IV. The controversy/hesitation surrounding PTSD makes definitive statements about it difficult, making McNally's mention of the predictive indicators interesting. It is mentioned that POWs from the Vietnam War, upon release, were not found to exhibit signs of PTSD. This was found despite the fact that the POWs suffered what McNally described as an objectively "traumatic" experience. I guess my curiosity is in the individuals that one might expect to exhibit signs of PTSD, but never do, and how they might compare with individuals that would otherwise be described as having PTSD. The absence of PTSD in some individuals (where possibly expected)is a reminder of the caution of attaching a cause to PTSD. The definition of a trauma that can encourage PTSD is broad, and possibly walks a fine line between the subjective and the objective. If this is the case, then it seems as if a greater understanding might be achieved in examining the populations that do not suffer from PTSD where one might anticipate its presence. With that, how can the way in which PTSD is measured be more discriminating and conclusive?
Thanks for sharing this information. I really like your blog post very much. You have really shared a informative and interesting blog post with people..
Hyperthymesia Causes
Post a Comment