> But I'm also growingly sympathetic to the idea that telling people they are, in fact, traumatized, is not healthy
If the message is, "you are traumatized and therefore permanently damaged", you're right - that's not healthy and also not true. But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury. I think this a pretty critical distinction that rarely gets addressed in these kinds of discussions.
Discovering you have trauma is a kind of diagnosis, so now you can figure out the kind of professional help you need.
I don't think there's really an epidemic of trauma hypochondriacs. It's not an excuse to play victim or anything. It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help.
> It's simply important to recognize that trauma means you're probably not going to get better on your own, and you should find help.
There is no evidence for this, and it is exactly the harmful mindset being criticized. Developing PTSD from traumatic events is the exception, not the rule. The majority of people do get better on their own.
No, you seem to be confused about the definition of trauma. This is important.
By definition, people who undergo traumatic events do not generally get better on their own. If they get over it easily, it's not classified as trauma.
Trauma is not defined by the event itself, but by the person's reaction to it. When you say the majority of people overcome trauma on their own, that is by definition false.
If you have a bad reaction to an event but it goes away within a week or too, it's classified as an acute stress reaction. Not trauma.
> But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury.
There is a problem of diagnosis, trauma is not as objectively diagnosable as physical injury. If somebody falls out of a tree and stands back up, nobody tells them they probably have broken legs because that obviously isn't true in this instance even if it might usually be true for somebody in their circumstance. But if somebody experiences something that might usually traumatize a person, it is harder to objectively determine if that specific individual is actually traumatized. If somebody is, against apparent odds, basically fine, it is at least conceivable that trusted authorities could gaslight that person into believing they are actually traumatized, in a way that causes that person to become in fact traumatized.
> it is at least conceivable that trusted authorities could gaslight that person into believing they are actually traumatized, in a way that causes that person to become in fact traumatized.
Where are you getting this idea from? That's not a thing.
If someone is so resilient they aren't traumatized by an event that would be traumatic to many others, you think they'll then be genuinely traumatized by someone... telling them they're traumatized?
At worst, being told you're traumatized when you're not, is going to result in a couple of visits with a therapist who will then assess that you seem fine.
> Where are you getting this idea from? That's not a thing.
It absolutely happens with kids who fall on the playground and similar minor traumas. If the parent freaks out the kid will cry and cry. If the parent laughs, the kid will shake it off and laugh. I don't think it's completely outlandish to speculate that this kind of effect might come into play in more serious situations than falling off the monkey bars.
I've seen similar with kids? Indeed, it is easily seen as one of the reasons they form fears to many bugs. Parents freak out over the bug that wasn't bothering a kid enough times, and the kid will eventually build a fear of bugs. (Or snakes/spiders/etc.)
Ok, but that's not what social workers etc. do. They don't tell kids how they should be reacting to an adverse event. They observe how a kid is already acting in response, to determine if something was traumatic, and then if therapy will help.
They're not telling kids to be terrified of something that the kid has already dealt with.
Uh, maybe we've met different social workers? Because I've absolutely seen that happen before.
Which, fair that you can easily catch yourself in a 'no true social worker' scenario. But it definitely happens. Especially with how little training we dedicate to camp counselors and such.
If the message is, "you are traumatized and therefore permanently damaged", you're right - that's not healthy and also not true. But if the message is "you are traumatized and need to process your trauma", then it's more like telling someone that they have a treatable injury. I think this a pretty critical distinction that rarely gets addressed in these kinds of discussions.