Why Trauma Doesn’t Exist According to Adlerian Psychology
theapeiron.co.uk
theapeiron.co.uk
The experience didn't impact my life negatively in the long term, but it definitely changed the way I think about trauma. If a single experience can fuck up my brain semi-permanently, I have utmost respect for people who suffered repeated trauma, sometimes even during early development. I cannot imagine such experiences not leaving debilitating scars of physical nature.
I think his perspective/emphasis just differs a bit from Freud for example. Like rather than saying this event caused my current state of mind (which is of course true from one perspective), he’d focus on the perspective that my mind reacted in this way for a particular purpose (e.g. to protect itself so that I can keep surviving/functioning in the future, even if it comes at a severe cost). That perspective is also true, just different.
I guess it’s important to have both—-empathy for your experience and the real trauma it caused (so that you still feel connected and supported by people) but also reflecting on what may be the purpose of some behaviors/mentalities that came out of the trauma, so that at least in the longer term they can be improved or substituted (e.g. if something exists for a purpose, we can’t just remove it because it’s “not normal”; we need to understand the root of it). All to keep moving forward to your best self. I mean, there’s no magic pill for trauma so every therapeutic approach is going to have limitations but it’s good to seek useful, self-empowering approaches which I think is what Adler was going for.
Just my interpretation. I’m not an Adler expert but I do like his work (as well as Freud’s).
The title is stupid, as is responding only to it.
In modern psychology, there is plenty of research into trauma based on way more than just Freud's theories, with actual measurable evidence.
Criticizing the developments of the theories of Breuer, who died in 1925, although the calendar has never been an argument.
One can train oneself to ignore trauma which is especially useful in sharp changes in life circumstances, or if what traumatized you is incredibly unlikely to ever happen again, but things like traumatized people being less confident and more anxious is actually useful and protective if you are repeatedly traumatized since the world is actually probably a dangerous place for such people and they should tread conservatively.
The core mechanism might be useful, but then there's a question of over-reaction. Consider, for instance, how the immune system is useful, but allergy might be life-threatening.
All people suffer some degree of trauma, even if it’s something as pedestrian as a loved one dying.
Cool that the dude from the 30s was big into Positive Mindsets or whatever though
Psychology is not science.
Psychiatry has just debunked it's most important modern thesis (serotonin theory).
The reason? All the smart scientists tend to go into physics and chemistry.
Really? This honestly sounds plausible to you?