If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Research shows that Freud was wrong about negative aspects of repressed memories, saying they are actually a good coping mechanism. Study was done using Cubs fans who still keep coming back to Wrigley Field   (time.com) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, Freud, coping mechanism, memory  
•       •       •

519 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Mar 2014 at 9:15 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-21 09:19:55 AM
I've been trying to repress the memories of seeing subby's father walk in naked while I was boning subby's mother
 
2014-03-21 09:24:00 AM
normally I would take the opportunity to publicly mock that worthless hack Freud, but;


PNAS,


the journal is called PNAS...?

heeeeeeeeee.....
 
2014-03-21 09:41:39 AM
The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.
 
2014-03-21 09:54:39 AM

InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.


My Now EX Shrink disagrees
 
2014-03-21 10:40:09 AM
Apples are the same as oranges, but also different; film at 11!
 
2014-03-21 10:59:01 AM

albatros183: InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.

My Now EX Shrink disagrees


My ex shrink said I had an issue with "obsessive thought," or getting the gears jammed on one thing.  This works when focused on productive and positive stuff.  Not so much with past, painful memories which I've confronted until they've slithered back into the shadows.  But they never vanish entirely, and can fuel depression if you let them.

In order to compensate, I make it a habit to routinely stop and think about what I've just been thinking about.  If any hob-goblins have been lurking again, I "shoo" them away and change channels, so to speak.
 
2014-03-21 11:01:00 AM
Silly subby is obviously not a Cubs fan.

We go to Wrigley to enjoy an afternoon in the sun with friends and beer.  The Cubs game is just an excuse to make the trip.

If they lose, hey it's the Cubs - time to drown our sorrows.  If they win, we drink EVEN MORE.

I no longer live in Chicago and could watch the Cubs on WGN, but without Wrigley, what's the point?
 
2014-03-21 11:30:43 AM
Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.
 
2014-03-21 11:48:57 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.


He had a pretty good neurological basis for his ideas about cathexis. And he did put a priority on unconscious motivations, which is making a come back in the cognitive science under the broad label of behavioral priming research. He was certainly wrong on a number of things, but then again so were most people, and inevitably so will most people today be shown to have been off the mark on this or that theory. Science progresses and it is important to be mindful of the history of scientific thought.
 
2014-03-21 11:52:36 AM

albatros183: InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.

My Now EX Shrink disagrees


Because???
 
2014-03-21 12:12:16 PM
Same with Leaf fans.
 
2014-03-21 12:18:17 PM

InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.


(For the tl;dr version, skip to the end.)

With PTSD, the memory is generally on replay because the memory hasn't been fully processed. That's why it's on replay, it's trying to be processed. Part of the difficulty lies with the intense emotional aspects of the specific trauma(s). The facts of the situation are generally easier to process, but the emotional aspects of the trauma are where the hard part lies.

Think of it this way. Imagine yourself, having never experienced an event like say, a firefight. You may have seen movies like Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, or others of the like. You may get butterflies, maybe a little discomfort. Due to the emotional distance afforded by the fact the event is not happening to you, it's easier to process and store away as a memory. If you actually experience the event, the emotional content can become overwhelming. Your limbic system is on overdrive, and your pre-frontal cortex is 9-10 steps behind in the action (Kome, if I'm screwing something up, please let me know. You're the neurologist). All that moment is is visceral sensation and impulse to survive. Combat soldiers are already trained to operate in that environment, which can benefit in allowing for coping with higher thresholds of fight or flight.The emotional content gets too overwhelming, and like a circuit-breaker, it goes off. You become numb.

However, the emotional response is a big part of the memory. I liken it to a credit card. Can't afford to engage in the emotion at that time, so you need to put it on the card. You can put it on the card, but it still needs to be paid back, with interest. But the emotions can be overwhelming. So the memory is avoided, which paradoxically puts more attention onto it. It's like trying to force an earworm out of your head. The more you try to ignore it, the stronger it becomes. So it continually replays.

Yes, the memory needs to be relived and processed, but the problem is when it's done before the individual isn't ready. Prior to processing it, a sense of safety and competence needs to be established with emotions. On a personal note, that's why I have a big problem with the big push for exposure therapy. Not that I disagree with the concept, but a lot of times it's implemented before the person is ready to do so.

TL;DR version. The memories have to be relived when the person is ready and feels able to manage the discomfort of the emotions. Do that, and you can remember it, not relive it.
 
2014-03-21 12:28:02 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.

(For the tl;dr version, skip to the end.)

With PTSD, the memory is generally on replay because the memory hasn't been fully processed. That's why it's on replay, it's trying to be processed. Part of the difficulty lies with the intense emotional aspects of the specific trauma(s). The facts of the situation are generally easier to process, but the emotional aspects of the trauma are where the hard part lies.

Think of it this way. Imagine yourself, having never experienced an event like say, a firefight. You may have seen movies like Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, or others of the like. You may get butterflies, maybe a little discomfort. Due to the emotional distance afforded by the fact the event is not happening to you, it's easier to process and store away as a memory. If you actually experience the event, the emotional content can become overwhelming. Your limbic system is on overdrive, and your pre-frontal cortex is 9-10 steps behind in the action (Kome, if I'm screwing something up, please let me know. You're the neurologist). All that moment is is visceral sensation and impulse to survive. Combat soldiers are already trained to operate in that environment, which can benefit in allowing for coping with higher thresholds of fight or flight.The emotional content gets too overwhelming, and like a circuit-breaker, it goes off. You become numb.

However, the emotional response is a big part of the memory. I liken it to a credit card. Can't afford to engage in the emotion at that time, so you need to put it on the card. You can put it on the card, but it still needs to be paid back, with interest. But the emotions can be overwhelming. So the memory is avoided, which paradoxically puts more attention ont ...


Timing is the key for dealing with said trauma. Good to know.
 
2014-03-21 12:51:14 PM

InterruptingQuirk: I'm an Egyptian!: InterruptingQuirk: The oftentimes unwanted side effect of forcing someone to confront traumatic events is that they usually relive the event while remembering it. The goal of remembering traumatic events is always keeping the memory from turning into a replay.

(For the tl;dr version, skip to the end.)

With PTSD, the memory is generally on replay because the memory hasn't been fully processed. That's why it's on replay, it's trying to be processed. Part of the difficulty lies with the intense emotional aspects of the specific trauma(s). The facts of the situation are generally easier to process, but the emotional aspects of the trauma are where the hard part lies.

Think of it this way. Imagine yourself, having never experienced an event like say, a firefight. You may have seen movies like Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, or others of the like. You may get butterflies, maybe a little discomfort. Due to the emotional distance afforded by the fact the event is not happening to you, it's easier to process and store away as a memory. If you actually experience the event, the emotional content can become overwhelming. Your limbic system is on overdrive, and your pre-frontal cortex is 9-10 steps behind in the action (Kome, if I'm screwing something up, please let me know. You're the neurologist). All that moment is is visceral sensation and impulse to survive. Combat soldiers are already trained to operate in that environment, which can benefit in allowing for coping with higher thresholds of fight or flight.The emotional content gets too overwhelming, and like a circuit-breaker, it goes off. You become numb.

However, the emotional response is a big part of the memory. I liken it to a credit card. Can't afford to engage in the emotion at that time, so you need to put it on the card. You can put it on the card, but it still needs to be paid back, with interest. But the emotions can be overwhelming. So the memory is avoided, which paradoxically puts ...


Absosmurfly. If the individual isn't ready to address the traumatic memory, retraumatization occurs. You can look at it from two perspectives (which basically both say the same thing, one just has more jargon). I'm a big fan of Judith Herman's model for addressing trauma: Establish a sense of safety, then remembrance and mourning, then reconnection to the larger world. If you don't have a sense of safety with emotions, revisiting the trauma is just going to make things worse. However, to put the thing to bed, it's a matter of cleaning up all the crap associated with the memory (aka emotional processing). Usually what happens is the individual only recalls flashes of the event, then develops a more coherent and detailed narrative. The first phases of narrative creation usually involve a spike in emotional distress. This is normal. It's like cleaning up a cluttered closet that you've haphazardly jammed a bunch of crap into. When you open the closet door, a lot of stuff is going to fall out, and spread the mess. However, this allows you to identify what the mess is made of, and allows for a sorting. Sucks to start with, but as you clean it up, it gets easier. Bonus is there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The important part is to change how you think about it, not what you're thinking about. The event will always have occurred, but there is a tendency to focus on inaccurate and unhelpful aspects of the event. But there's no such thing as a one-sided coin. There's always another side. For some, it's the fact that yeah, that memory sucked, but I survived. Those coulda, woulda, shouldas didn't happen. After that, it's reconnecting with the world bringing in what you've learned by the development of the narrative and the examination of what you've been thinking. But you have to get through the feel part first.

The easier way is to look at from a military training perspective. Crawl-walk-run. In the crawl phase, you learn the fundamental skills. In the walk phase, you start to apply them to a specific set of conditions. After you get comfortable with the walk, then you start to use the skills naturally and intuitively (I'm not getting into this, that's for the other thread on the main page.)

Any questions, EIP.
 
2014-03-21 01:30:12 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.


I just covered some Freudian and post-Freudian stuff in my classes this week, so I'm really getting a cigar mommy potty-training out of this.

The problem is, Freud was at the same time (1) a genuine genius with some outstanding insights into the human condition, and (2) nuttier than squirrel poop.  This creates a problem, because his brilliant stuff is deeply intertwined with his personal issues, failure to understand what science is, malignant sexism, unhealthy fondness for ancient Greeks, Victorian-era perspective, and flat-out moonbattery.  This means that we can neither unthinkingly embrace Freud nor unthinkingly reject him.  We have to do the difficult work of trying to disentangle the good stuff from the bad stuff.  As Kome pointed out, he was right about the importance of the unconscious, though he was wrong about the nature and functioning of the unconscious.

My favorite example of trying to rescue some freudianism from Freud is the work of George Vaillant, over at Harvard Medical.  For the past few decades, he has been working on a version of Freud's theory of the defense mechanisms that reconceptualizes them as individual differences in cognitive stress-response reactions.  Good stuff, and influential enough that he got his own appendix in the DSM out of it.
 
2014-03-21 01:31:53 PM
BTW, "Research shows that Freud was wrong about..." describes about half of 20th-century psychology. :)
 
2014-03-21 02:18:03 PM
St. Louisan-like typing detected.
 
2014-03-21 02:34:46 PM
Wasn't that one of the problems with Marylin Monroe? I thought I'd heard that she spent way too many hours per week in psychoanalysis, so while she thought she was reliving past trauma to exercise it, she was really just spending too much time dwelling on it and not moving forward.
 
2014-03-21 06:22:46 PM

Son of Thunder: Fark_Guy_Rob: Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.

I just covered some Freudian and post-Freudian stuff in my classes this week, so I'm really getting a cigar mommy potty-training out of this.

The problem is, Freud was at the same time (1) a genuine genius with some outstanding insights into the human condition, and (2) nuttier than squirrel poop.  This creates a problem, because his brilliant stuff is deeply intertwined with his personal issues, failure to understand what science is, malignant sexism, unhealthy fondness for ancient Greeks, Victorian-era perspective, and flat-out moonbattery.  This means that we can neither unthinkingly embrace Freud nor unthinkingly reject him.  We have to do the difficult work of trying to disentangle the good stuff from the bad stuff.  As Kome pointed out, he was right about the importance of the unconscious, though he was wrong about the nature and functioning of the unconscious.

My favorite example of trying to rescue some freudianism from Freud is the work of George Vaillant, over at Harvard Medical.  For the past few decades, he has been working on a version of Freud's theory of the defense mechanisms that reconceptualizes them as individual differences in cognitive stress-response reactions.  Good stuff, and influential enough that he got his own appendix in the DSM out of it.


You should check out Pribram and Gill's 1976 monograph "Freud's 'Project' Re-Assessed". They relate some of Freud's ideas to (then-modern) cognitive science and neuropsychology. It's important to keep in mind, too, that Freud was a neurologist before he founded psychoanalysis. It's a pretty good, if technical, read.

Some (certainly not all, but some) of his moonbattery can very easily be considered a complete and utter failure on his part to translate some of his neurology work into psychology. That is, he didn't show his work completely to support why he said some of the things he said. And unlike not showing your work on, say, a math test where the teacher has an answer key, it's hard to even give him partial credit because we don't have an answer sheet to verify whether what he said was true or not. But it sure is easy to discount him because of how he said some of the things he said.
 
2014-03-21 07:17:01 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.


Technically yes. Cigars can just be cigars.

Otherwise, I guess he got people thinking about how the mind works so I guess that is good.
 
2014-03-21 07:48:29 PM

Kome: Son of Thunder: Fark_Guy_Rob: Has Freud been right about ANYTHING?  Can we please just pretend he never existed.

I just covered some Freudian and post-Freudian stuff in my classes this week, so I'm really getting a cigar mommy potty-training out of this.

The problem is, Freud was at the same time (1) a genuine genius with some outstanding insights into the human condition, and (2) nuttier than squirrel poop.  This creates a problem, because his brilliant stuff is deeply intertwined with his personal issues, failure to understand what science is, malignant sexism, unhealthy fondness for ancient Greeks, Victorian-era perspective, and flat-out moonbattery.  This means that we can neither unthinkingly embrace Freud nor unthinkingly reject him.  We have to do the difficult work of trying to disentangle the good stuff from the bad stuff.  As Kome pointed out, he was right about the importance of the unconscious, though he was wrong about the nature and functioning of the unconscious.

My favorite example of trying to rescue some freudianism from Freud is the work of George Vaillant, over at Harvard Medical.  For the past few decades, he has been working on a version of Freud's theory of the defense mechanisms that reconceptualizes them as individual differences in cognitive stress-response reactions.  Good stuff, and influential enough that he got his own appendix in the DSM out of it.

You should check out Pribram and Gill's 1976 monograph "Freud's 'Project' Re-Assessed". They relate some of Freud's ideas to (then-modern) cognitive science and neuropsychology. It's important to keep in mind, too, that Freud was a neurologist before he founded psychoanalysis. It's a pretty good, if technical, read.

Some (certainly not all, but some) of his moonbattery can very easily be considered a complete and utter failure on his part to translate some of his neurology work into psychology. That is, he didn't show his work completely to support why he said some of the things he said. And unlike not showing your work on, say, a math test where the teacher has an answer key, it's hard to even give him partial credit because we don't have an answer sheet to verify whether what he said was true or not. But it sure is easy to discount him because of how he said some of the things he said.


I'll look for that article. Thanks.
 
2014-03-22 04:54:57 AM
My Great-Grandfather bought buildings on Waveland. My Grandfather was born a couple years after 1908...Grew up there. Father grew up on Waveland.  They brought me there too...  (Yes I know what year Wrigley Field was built)

All good memories. Rarely good games, but good memories.
 
2014-03-22 02:40:31 PM
This is our year! I know it!
tdnfl.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-22 02:58:45 PM
I call selection bias.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report