h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

“Even if someone has had a similar experience to yours, it will not be the same and I do not believe they are necessarily any better qualified to help than a good friend with empathy.”

Just one last comment, there are several people out here and in Mundania, who I place, at minimum, in the ‘good friend’ category. They have suffered abuses that I can not even begin to comprehend. What do you say to someone whose father has repeatedly raped them? Or parent who has broken bone after bone in their body? Or left a 2 year old alone for weeks at a time with no food in the house, or left a five year old boy alone when the parents took his sisters on a month long vacation (they never wanted a boy)- (they both wear scars on their hands where they tried to get out of the house)? Or to the adult whose body is covered with cigarette burns and scars they repeatedly received as a child? And these are just the scars that show.

I could go on and on, but I won’t.

I am a survivor. I have some training. I still do not know what to say or how to empathize with them. But I wish I could.

For those who don't like to read, I provide this summary service.

Stiff lips sink ship



Now, as I understand this, the study reported that some folks benefited from the treatment and other folks may have become worse.

Without reading the exact account of the study and knowing how the patients were chosen for treatment, how they were treated (there are any number of different techniques for psychological treatment), and what the qualifications and experiences of those performing the treatment were, it would seem that all we can draw from this study is that some people benefitted from the treatments and some people didn't and may have been harmed by it, speaking in a purely observational and statistical manner. This study cannot tell us anything much more than that.

The first conclusion that can be drawn is that, sometimes, such treatment may be uncalled for and completely contra-indicated.

The second conclusion that can be drawn is that, sometimes, such treatment may be helpful and beneficial.

The third conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no doubt that psychological treatment clearly can be influential, even if that influence is bad.

I'm sure you've all heard the joke about what one calls the person who graduates last in his class at medical school. The answer, of course, is 'doctor.'

If we acknowledge ranking as indicating judgmental as well as trained skills used to provide medical or, in this case, psychological support, then we must also recognize that there are going to be those psychological workers who are better at their jobs then others. While it is nice to suppose that any person certified as competent is capable of handling any problem, they themselves will admit that they each have areas where they excel and areas where they are wanting.

Given that there are many different styles of psychological treatment, varying almost to the completely individual level and given that each patient is going to have specific individual needs that might or might not fit with a given councilor then it should be no surprise that there were many who were never directed to the correct councilor.

But, the fact remains that SOME of these people WERE helped.

So, this study is not something that should lead us to conclude that psychotherapy is worthless, but rather that there must be reasons why it sometimes doesn't work. Those reasons should be discovered and corrected. Additionally, the reasons why it does work should be highlighted and further perfected.

Since Freud made his discoveries while studying those people of his practice and made the fundamental observations about the mind's ability to conceal and transform past experiences, there have been a vast number of studies which confirm that psychotherapy, as it has evolved, can be useful.

It is also undeniable that in a society that revels in denial, that anything that can be made to serve as an excuse for lack of responsibility will be twisted to that purpose. After all, if a person can do murder and be 'excused' for not being in hir right mind then anything is permissible, if it can be 'excused' in this way.

Now, if a person is incapable of accepting responsibility for hir actions then shi certainly cannot be permitted to wander freely in a society that depends on the assumption that those around one are responsible or in the charge of one who is.

A pub or a circle of friends is no solution to this issue and, in fact, it can make matters worse by reenforcing the idea that responsibility can be avoided either by being drunk or by passing it off on the judgment of one's equally minded friends. It can also, through the understanding and forgives that friends can achieve, lead someone to believe that his issues are not significant in the larger context of society when they can and do result in problems.

I have nothing against alcohol when used for entertainment, for the same reason that I have nothing against recreational drugs, however the perception that such things free one from responsibility is false and should not be permitted.

If a person's problems are such that counseling can help hir then shi should not be denied counseling, neither by law nor by social stigmatization.

When it comes to PTS, however, there are more issues involved.

PTS is a condition where simple and normal aspects of life can cause a person to behave in a socially unacceptable way. A war veteran who has 'shell shock' may be seen to 'drop and roll' in an involuntary and inappropriate manner when there is a loud noise, such as an auto back fire or a door slamming. What's the harm? The harm is that those around him don't know or understand his history and therefore don't think much more than 'Look at that barmy bloke, you wouldn't want to have him over for tea.'

The same is true of someone who had been systematically psychologically, sexually, and/or physically abused. If one has been consistently hurt with a ball point pen (biro) then it should come as no surprise that simply seeing one in a person's hand might provoke a 'fight or flight' response. Once again, 'Good Lord! How crazy is that, you wouldn't want to have hir over for tea.'

Now since there is 'no way' to educate everyone not to behave in such a ignorant and presumptive fashion, it is necessary, for perfectly sensible reasons, that person with PTS should seek out help to deal with these problems. This follows simply out of a need not to be shunned, hated, despised, and misunderstood -- though to some these may seem to be simply the appropriate conditions of life.

The ignorant attitude (note the root word, 'ignore') of the general populace however discourages making use of psychological services, even if they are available. There is even a nasty Catch-22 to requesting psychological help.

If you will recall, the book and film 'Catch-22', that 'catch' was the rule that would allow someone to get out of combat if he were crazy. But, he could not get that relief unless he asked for it. And, if he asked for it, he wasn't crazy (with the presumption that he was malingering -- that is, seeking to avoid his responsibilities) because it would be crazy *not* to want to get out of combat.

In normal life, the Catch-22 is precisely the same, as we are seeing here in this thread. The fact is that psychological treatment is not generally regarded as a health issue but rather is thought to be a clear indication of a character flaw or congenital deformity.

Alcohol, however, is a thoroughly socialized drug which is known to erode a person's ability to be responsible for hir own actions. At the same time, in moderation, it is known to allow a certain amount of relaxation and elation which can be beneficial in terms of stress relief. There are even those of deep religious conviction who praise G-d for having given us the gift of fermentation (in that case, however, that gift is often considered so sacred that it is not used in a casual fashion, but only for religious celebration) and that is often used as yet another reason to justify or mandate social drinking.

The result of this Bacchic devotion is that those with problems often use drink and it's attendant personality change/release to substitute for the help they need of another sort. It has come to be considered a sovereign cure any problem that might have to do with stress, past or present. It stands almost without saying that we all are always under stress, if only because of those responsibilities which we do not willingly accept.

If alcohol will not cure it, then it *must* be incurable and the proper solution is to clear out that space in the attic and install a nice big lock on the door. After all, we can't have the neighbors know that one of ours is off the wall, full tilt, bozo. It reflects poorly on the family status.

There is also the lovely implication that because we all use alcohol we are all just a bit touched but fortunately all we need to do is keep taking the cure to be 'just fine'.

Talking with friends is just fine. That is what we are doing here. But, if our friends can't help and the alcohol can't help AND we don't particularly like the view through the slats in the attic window, then it's time to consider that there might be some value to this psychotherapy 'garbage'.

Of course, the implication that everyone might be forced to participate in psychotherapy is to suggest that "everyone is a bozo on this bus."

This is what comes from thinking in extremes.

Of course, we like to think that we are resilient and that just a little bit of stress relief will help us wake up sane and acceptable the next morning. But, it is very clear that some things are harder to deal with than others.

One of those things is loss of security: that is, the sense that one is personally safe and free from attack. Our sense of security can be threatened by things that are within our control, such as how well we work and attend to our duties, and things which are beyond our control or expectation such as being hit by a car in our living rooms -- perhaps driven by someone who drank and had so abandoned hir responsibilities as to take control of a powerful engine on four wheels.

A person with PTS is fully aware that shi has *no* security. There is nothing that is safe. There is no one who is safe. There is no action that cannot and will not result in awful and disproportionate retribution.

Try to imagine being afraid to get out of bed for fear that the way that you have placed your bed clothes or where you set your feet down might get you whipped, starved, and/or humiliated. Try to imagine *knowing* that every person you meet might lead you into a situation where you will have a broken arm or worse and that you will be denied any help for that condition because you deserve it. Try to imagine that you dare not go to the pub because you might accidentally mention that you are being used as a sexual toy by your father or mother and that *they* might be upset and embarrassed.

It doesn't matter that such events happened years ago, the lesson has been learned. After all, how many of you need to remember not to stick your hand in the fire because it might get burned? That lesson was learned so long ago that you likely cannot remember when it was learned (or if you do, it must still be exceptionally vivid.) You don't just 'get over' such abuse. It isn't a matter of facing up to the reality that your Mum is dead and can't hurt you any more. Hearing that is like hearing someone say, "Fire has changed now, it's been improved and made more safe. Go ahead, stick your hand in." Even if you see that person do it, you are not likely to boldly go where you have been efficiently discouraged of going before.

Of course, if you've been to the pub, you might just believe it, if your friend told you that it was fine, shi does it all the time.

The idea that psychological counseling can be used in a prophylactic fashion after events that are known to cause trauma is still controversial for the simple reason that it hasn't been done enough to have proved itself either way.

The idea that any kind of repression must ultimately lead to psychosis is a very early one, however, and there is a lot of agreement that, while this might be an extreme way of phrasing the problem, there are some things that can't be 'dealt' with and which will cause problems later.

Of course, it is fun to laugh at such things as the concept behind the movie "Citizen Kane" with it's implication that a very powerful man's entire life was shaped by the longing for the simple days and ways embodied by a child's sled. Yet there is a sense of rightness to thinking that the 'man' of that film was dedicated to the struggle to achieve that kind of simplicity along with the bittersweet recognition that all he had to do was stop, give up, and go back (contrasted with the understanding that there never seems to be a way to go back.)

It is easy to say, that anyone who has problems with what his mother, father, uncle, minister, school master, etc. did to hir should simply face the fact that those days are over and that this is a new day with no connection to those old ones. But that is a foolish thing to say because there was no way to get from then to now except through each one of those days and the effects of those experiences control who you are, what you do, and what you can expect to happen tomorrow. There is no way that you can *say* anything that will magically overpower those previous life lessons. In fact, you couldn't even have said such a thing if your life had not been different.

There are a few of you who have actually had such experiences and can say, honestly, that you managed to overcome them on your own, with the help and support of a few friends (and perhaps some alcohol to deaden the pain). You may well think that you are nothing special and that anyone should be able to do just as you did. You are wrong to project your strength on everyone else and you may be wrong to think that you have coped with all of the issues and that you are not being limited and shaped by your experiences.

But being insane is not the same as being 'crazy' 'Crazy' is a social judgment which essentially means 'having that person around decreases my safety because I have no idea what shi will do next.' Thus, the crazy people deprive the 'normal' people of some of their sense of security. It follows that they must be fixed or removed -- permanently. Ultimately, this judgment is made by society which has certain unwritten standards for tolerable behavior as it varies from the norm but which is may or may not involve illegal actions. Thus, we see that all that is not forbidden is not necessarily permitted, particularly consistent inconsistencies.

Psychotherapy is a method of 'fixing' people based on the idea that something happened that can be 'educated' against and thus make the patient fit for society again.

Psychotherapy may not be necessary for any given problem. There may be other ways including a friendly visit to the pub and frank talks with your friends. But, there is nothing that says that it cannot help those who want to be helped if administered by someone who is sensitive to the needs of the patient as well as the precepts of hir training.

For this reason, I am amazed that there is such vehemence here against it and not at all surprised that those who have accepted that help or actively sought it out should be so vehement in its support.

Why is this controversial? This is the question that I ask myself over and over. Why are so many people so dedicated to disparaging this kind of support?

The issue appears to be that it looks like to them that things that they have accepted responsibility for appear to be excused for people who accept such treatment. I seem to recall someone asking, 'Why can't people just take responsibility for their own actions?"

The answer to that is very simple, people are not responsible for choices they do not make freely. People with PTS are in bondage to those past people, values, and events. If it seems that society is being asked to pay a price because of those earlier actions that is simply because society failed in it's duty to provide any kind of security to these survivors when they needed it.

To some extent, the same is true of anyone who is criminally insane, not to suggest that people with PTS are insane. Insanity is a legal term that refers to the ability to know right from wrong and understand the distinction. (Right and wrong being, arbitrarily, what the law permits and what it forbids.) Philosophically, the failure to understand that distinction is a failure on society's part to properly instill it. It would be wrong for society to punish someone for its failure. However, having recognized that such a person exists, society is not under any obligation to permit that person to roam freely. Thus such a person must be trained or must be excluded -- permanently.

Psychotherapy is simply a method of training whereby the patient is led to understand that certain values and/or beliefs are either incorrect or no longer valid; that is, the patient must change or shi must 'get past it.' (not 'over it') In the case of PTS, the patient must come to understand at the deepest possible level that the experiences shi had and hir responses to them may have been valid then but that they are inappropriate or incorrect now. Since PTS is essentially the imposition of a lack of security, the necessary way of treating the cause, and not the symptoms of the problem, is to help the patient find the security that is necessary to be able to live in society, hopefully, in a productive and non-destructive way.

One of the reasons that talking to friends helps at all is because, within that circle of friends, there is a kind of acceptance that can provide some security. However, that kind of sense of security can be limiting. The circle of friends is necessarily a small one. Outside that circle, there is none of that safety.

Of course, the best circle of friends is a circle made up of other survivors. There is less need to make oneself understood. The understanding is already there. Still, while such people can share what they have done to cope, they cannot share what it takes to accommodate what was, with what is though they can add support as any friend could do.

Analysis is best done by someone who understands the problem but is not emotionally involved in the patients particular situation. More importantly, an analyst is theoretically trained to understand causes and symptoms and potential alternative solutions.

Most of the distinctions behind current methods of treatment resolve to disagreement on the most teachable method of how to understand the patient's issues in respect to societies needs and the resolution of the conflicts. The goal of all treatment is to help the patient to become a productive and satisfied part of society.

So again, where is the controversy? What is it that so provokes the British public in general so much that we are told that Americans, who presumably are recognized as not disparaging such therapy, are regarded as weak and self-indulgent because of it. Someone has even mentioned the proverbial stiff upper lip, which presumably is intended to suggest to the outsider that the Brits are utterly unshakeable, imperturbable, and in need of no assistance whatsoever. At least, that is the mandatory appearance. Why? Because they are British.

So, one must be strong and not give into personal issues because it is utterly unpatriotic to show any weakness at all. There can be no such thing as a weak Brit! In fact, there *is* no such thing as a weak Brit! There's nothing wrong here that can't be fixed with a quick visit to the pub. And, somehow, you manage to convince yourself of that and feel the need to utterly disparage anyone who can't carry it off.

In the same sense, I imagine that such a person would disparage the poor slob who cannot manage to lift his 250 pound pack because *he* had no problem at all with his 15 pound load.

There is clearly a recognition here that people haven't the ability to understand what they have not themselves experienced. This ability is known as empathy, otherwise described as the willingness to place oneself in that of another and to imagine, more or less accurately, what that situation might be like. You are excusing yourself from the discussion by saying that you are crippled in that respect, yet you still venture to put forth your opinions.

If you are lacking in understanding, the commonly accepted behavior to seek it out, not to declare it irrelevant. If you cannot achieve understanding then should be content to ask for clarification and recognize that you have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation.

Why is this whole thing a matter of opinion? Why are we willing to take the same attitude in ignorance that we take when asked who we favor in the next big game. This is not the subject for a bet. This is not something suitable for a lark. Opinion doesn't matter. We are talking about people and about the quality of their lives. If you choose to rank them in anyway as less than yourself then you are simply confirming that their problems aren't important in your mind.

You are entitled to that opinion. You may vote for less support of cripples, crazies, and foreigners. You may even choose to drown babies that don't have the right birthmark. That is one of the privileges of a society. It may accept or exclude what ever it pleases for no more reason than whim. But opinion will not decide how many teeth a healthy horse has nor how much energy is required to boil water once someone has actually gone to check.

Failure to accept that mental problems exist and that they can most often be overcome is foolish.

Willingness to condemn people for admitting that they need help may be well within 'proper' social guide lines, but it will not make their problems disappear or the beer taste better. There is no point in voting against mental health or in voting that it is always rated as "I'm fine, Jack ..." no matter what bodies are carted off to the loonie bin.

Understanding has advanced past the need to pretend that everything is just fine so long as the sun never sets on the British Empire or, for that matter, on the US Empire.

By the way, you are all invited to attend a festival with me. We'll be gathering on 2 October in the Bailiwick of Jersey to watch everything fall off the edge of the world, five miles off shore in any direction. We're hoping that this will become an annual event in the one place that matters in our world, where even the cows have stiff upper lips, and where nothing at all can ever go wrong.

Just a quick addition.

Where I wrote, "get past it" not "over it".

This is all an issue of sematic differences that must be explained and agreed upon before it has any real meaning.

So, let's pretend that there is no difference that makes a difference even though those who have been told to 'get over it' or to "get past it" in the wrong context all know that any 'solution' that ignores the complexity of the effects on the person and the total involvment of those events in hir entire life is simply failing to think things through.

Barton

Trying to steer clear of the issues I don't understand, but make a couple of comments nonetheless:

Practically speaking, if counselling shortly after an event does help some people, and doesn't help others (or even makes them feel worse), maybe a useful thing to do would be to see if it were possible to predict the people who would be helped, and those who would not, and thereby improve the overall results of the process.

"couple of comments" should have been "a comment".

(I *did* write more initially, but it rambled somewhat, wasn't really in keeping with the direction or depth of other postings, and I feared it may be misinterpreted, so I cut it.)

QS says that what he takes issue with is those people who seek out counseling for such “trivial” things as a spat with a loved one, etc. I don’t think anything that hurts is a “trivial” thing, and it is always, of course, relative.

Please pardon me if I get defensive, but it’s the nature of the beast.

Some people have withstood and survived unspeakable pain, which many other people couldn’t even imagine. Things like Richenda and Krispy have spoken of. Things such as a mother who refused to allow me to look her in the eye because I made her sick, who beat and choked me any time I stepped “out of line“, and a myriad of other joys I won‘t bother getting into, it's not worth it. Things like a foster home where, at 13, the man of the house took my virginity with a screwdriver, then made me bathe in scalding water to remove the filth I’d brought into their otherwise idyllic home. Things like a brutal sexual assault, which but for the grace of some Higher Power, was to have ended with my death. Leaving me with so much pain and guilt and self-loathing that drives me to drink, robs me of sleep and sucks the joy out of even the most pleasant of times. And yet I CAN empathise and understand, without feeling the need to play games of one-upmanship, and trivialise such “mundane” and “everyday” things as a spat with a loved one, etc. Anyone capable of the basest of human emotion should be able to understand that pain and fear can be devastating, no matter what the cause.

Stop for a moment to consider the possibility that for some people, the relationships they have with their loved ones are the most important and most vital part of their lives. I can and do understand how devastating a threat to such a relationship can be, and yes, even the pettiest of squabbles constitute a threat to the delicate balance of even the most stable and loving of relationships. So, no, a spat with a sibling or other loved one is not a petty inconvenience to be brushed off as if it doesn’t matter. For some, it’s all that matters.

Sometimes, a seemingly minor occurrence can open an emotional floodgate and unleash a tsunami of things a person had locked away for years- repressed, forgotten about, denied, “Gotten Over”. A sound, a smell, a feeling, can bring back long-forgotten hurts that hit you like an anvil. Often, the people who seem to be best coping with the crap that life chucks their way are the ones in most danger of coming apart.

Perhaps some people who seek counseling (therapy, whatever) are merely seeking “attention”... well, SO WHAT?! If a person needs it that badly, then better they get it through counseling than not at all. .

I like to think I’d be able to endure anything that life could possibly throw at me, if I could survive this long, and I strive to do it with fortitude and grace. But sometimes the seemingly insignificant things- a harsh word, fear of failure or rejection, a whisper or laugh behind my back, can send me into a downward spiral that I don’t always have the strength to pull myself out of. Some days it’s all I can do to leave my house, and like I said before, it’s not a matter of wanting to cling to the past and give up on life. It’s simply that the only way to survive is to protect oneself from harm at any cost, and some people's threshold is by necessity lower than that of others. One purpose of getting counseling is to learn ways to do that without isolating, defeating, or causing oneself more pain. .

I now have a wonderful support system, and a new found Family made up of so many of those people that society has labeled as “freaks”, “misfits”, or just too damn broken to be of use to anyone “normal”. And you know, I'm glad I have, because it‘s most of the seemingly “normal“ people I find it difficult, often impossible, to trust.

As Richenda has repeatedly reiterated, to no avail, the original topic was counseling AND post-traumatic stress. (I don’t call it PTSD, either, trust me, there‘s no “disorder“ in my life- au contraire, my friends). If you want to discuss useless therapy, I’m happy to have another go at it, but not at the cost of trivialising the trauma that people, myself and the people I love more than anything included, have experienced.

Who knows how many people, who seek out help for things which seem insignificant to most, are carrying around a huge weight that no-one can be bothered to see. I’ve got a brilliant disguise, which can deceive just about anyone save those closest to me. Does that mean I don't need help, that things aren't sometimes just too much to bear? Pain and fear are something that can best be seen and understood by another who KNOWS what they ARE, be it a loved one who has experienced it, or someone who‘s been trained to see it. I place little faith in the latter, personally, but I don’t begrudge others the need to do so if it can do them some good. It isn’t possible to judge just how much another person might be hurting until you’ve made an effort to empathise- as Richenda has said, that means putting yourself in that person's shoes and trying to truly understand what they must be feeling. Perhaps some people would do well to learn to do THAT, rather than expecting others to pretend that bad (and once again, it's not WHAT it was but how badly it hurt) things don’t happen and pain doesn’t exist.

Hello PCandy!

Hiya, JEllen, I've missed you.

'Why can't people just take responsibility for their own actions?"

Asking for help when you realize you are in over your head IS taking responsibility. As you can see from the opinions and views offered it takes courage also. When you have nothing left to lose but yourself you best reach out for help (not from a bottle IMO)

A huge part of therapy can be about being asked new questions. To simplify;
People feel trapped when they feel they have no choices. They feel trapped when they keep asking the same questions and getting the same unsatisfactory answers. You need new questions (new options) when that happens. A good therapist will ask you new questions.

Victims often feel they have no right to ask for any of their needs to be filled. Many do not understand this is what keeps them in a victims role, grateful for any bone they are thrown. It is a sad and fearful way to live. Imagine if you can, what it takes for a "victim" to ask for help. It takes a hell of a lot of courage.

You're right pcandy, it is all relative. I'd said the very same thing in another post elsewhere, and not applied it here. People are only human.

My worry is that this treatment has been proven to have dangerous side effects in some users...if it were a drug it would either be withdrawn from the market until further studies are done or it would be issued with a serious health warning.

For some reason because this is a treatment that deals with people minds, emotions and experiences it is somehow less well regulated than the chemicals available from the pharmacy...this is wrong. If anything counselling and phsychotherapy have a much greater potential to help or heal than some drugs which have to go through rigorous tests.

What are the side effects? Why are they dangerous?

This kind of therapy should be administered by trained and licensed professionals. Such folk will have the appropriate paperwork mounted proudly on the wall because they spent a lot of time and effort earning them and they want to reassure their clients that they are not in the hands of some quack.

These licenses are no different from those issued to other doctors, practical nurses, registered nurses, paramedics, midwives, pharmacists, and nearly any other professional who offers health related services to the public.

Because this therapy is moderated by a trained professional, it should be understood that, that person is not merely parroting back some cliches learned in a mail order course without any understanding of what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Yes, as I myself said, there are people with more and less skill and talent working in these professions as in all others. You, too, are a thinking creature and it is your right, privilege, and duty to look out for your own interests, just as it is in any other situation where you are putting your well being in someone else's hands.

You are not a television to be blindly tweaked by a repairman according to the instructions in a book till the technician stumbles on the right fixes or gives up.

That is another area of uncertainty about this reported study. We are told some or even the largest part of people were hurt by the treatments. What does that mean? What kind of hurt? How were the determinations arrived at? What constitutes success? How were those determinations arrived at? In both cases, who made the determinations? In both cases, how could the study have been ethically permitted to continue if such results even began to be found? Why would anyone choose to trust anyone who so ignored those ethical considerations? Who commissioned the study? Why? Are they criminally liable for the damages they caused to have inflicted on these people. Who interpreted the study? Are they competent? Was the paper juried and published or merely reported?

If there are people who can become sick from eating lamb, must all lamb be banned or do they learn to avoid it after reasonable precautions have been taken in the public interest to insure that products which contain it are labeled?

Since fire can burn, should we not banish fire?

Since water can drown, should we not banish water?

Since people can choke, should we not banish food?

Is there anything, any where, that cannot be misused? Should we not ban everything for the better well-being of the world at large?

Yes, an evil person with a rudimentary knowledge of psychology can do enormous damage. Ask any survivor of psychological abuse for a full and detailed account. Find any person so in love with someone that shi cannot see how shi is being manipulated by a monster who is simply using hir to further selfish ends, then try to get that person to understand, what is plain to you, that shi is in danger from the beatings and broken bones inflicted on hir by hir lover. Shi will patiently explain exactly how worthless shi is and how necessasry and proper it is that shi be corrected until shi has shed hir mistakes. Then watch as shi lovingly and beseechingly hands the flail back to hir lover, begs to be taught the right way, and falls in tears when shi is denied the correction.

But this person is an utter weakling, you might say, as if that somehow justified the treatment, but I have seen these techniques used on people who had achieved real financial stability and advanced professional degrees, who had never been known to back down to any person when asserting their own firm convictions. All it took was the right approach from someone willing to exploit it.

If this is so, should we be training people in methods that might be so devistating? Shouldn't we be destroying all this nasty new learning? These things have been going on for generation after generation after generation. It doesn't take science to know how to do such damage, it only takes a modest knack and a willingness to use it. Re-read "Richard III", "Was ever woman in this humour wooed? Was ever woman in this humour won?" Do you think Will invented this idea? Do you think that Freud invented psychological warfare?

For that matter, have you never 'psyched' out an 'opponent' in some competition?

PTS is the result of the consistent actions of someone who has destroyed someone else's sense of security. It takes skill to avoid making grotesque mistakes in an attempt to correct such damage. It takes understanding to even begin.

Yes, it takes a certain kind of pride to be willing to attempt that while understanding what can go wrong. But, the same kind of pride is required to take anyone's life in hand and assert that the training has been adequate for any such task. Ask a physician about the constant war between humility and pride, between perceived need and perceived remedy, about the oath to 'first, do no harm.'

If you are frightened of this sort of thing then you have no business becoming involved in it, either as physician or patient. And, no one should ever attempt to force you to participate.

But, because you are frightened, ignorant, indignant, or merely traditional, you do not have the duty or right to decide for everyone else.

Mark Twain once commented that people don't pass laws to stop themselves from doing something.

If you honestly believe that such a thing is evil, in the sense of forbidden and condemned by G-d, then you will no doubt feel obliged to fight aqainst it to your last dying breath. That is the price of faith.

But, please find some way to justify to your own satisfaction, the plight of those who will not be helped and who will always be able to find solace in a draft of poison, a dive from a bridge or tall building, or the simple quick agony of a bullet to the brain or knife through the heart.

I don't mean to be needlessly or over-dramatic. I mean to call your attention to the magnetude of the problems and their common solutions.

Without some of these forms of treatment, there is no way to deal with these problems. Without the treatment, there is nothing left but the ultimate existential solution and even that is denied to many of the victims because they have lost the ability to find the will to do it.

Try looking around you, see if you don't find people who aren't already trapped; unwanted children with overbearing parents, old people being ruled by the children they once ruled, women who seem to be always injured or who just aren't around much anymore and who seem panicked when you do run into them, folks who seem to go out of their way to be inconspicuous and self-effacing, people who never seem able to accept a compliment or even understand why one would be offered, bag-people moving on the streets, successful friends who can't seem to be happy or sober, quaint old aunts who seem moderately upset when you laugh at their curious excentricities, angry young men and women who don't seem to have a reason or to undestand that they should have one, happy folks who laugh all the time at anything you say and then drift away quickly when you aren't looking.

Of course, for all these victims, there are victors, too.

Denying one will not cure the world of the other. Denying one victim the help shi needs will only mean one more nasty victory. And denying that anything is wrong will only insure that things don't change.

Barton

Potholer, that would be a good idea. Wouldn't want to be part of the research though!!

Hi abbi and psychocandy

that phrase 'why can't people take responsibility for their own actions' is often accompanied by 'people always want to blame things on their parents, rather than take responsibility'.

Funnily enough I can see both sides, at some point you have to grow up and you can live the way you want to. But, apply that sentence to anyone who has suffered from incest, and you will lose that person as a friend and deservedly so.

I think part of the problem is that when a person picks to have counselling or not, there is no way from that point you can tell if that person could have made better progress by picking the other option. So where someone could swear by counselling, they may have done better without it, and equally someone who says they came out alright with a 'stiff upper lip' may have done better if they had counselling.

I have been better talking when I need to, rather than focussing on nasty stuff when I don't want to. Guess I needed counselling on tap! Luckily I have Moonglum on tap, and then meeting the friends here was just what I needed. So I agree with having someone to talk to, but I need to be in control of when and where, and I prefer to do it with people who are non-judgemental and have been through it too and so understand with compassion rather than with a textbook.

Once again Barton has said what I'd wished I could say, and said it so much more eloquently than I ever could have done.

I'm also interested in hearing what the dangerous side effects might be. I honestly don't understand what you meant by that, PQ, I'm not merely being facetious. I've had some really unethical, nasty people for therapists, and the worst harm they did was to reinforce what I already knew, i.e. people are going to hurt me at every opportunity because that is the best I deserve. That's exactly why help from trained and skilled people is needed, to help people un-learn this kind of thinking and behavior.

Seeking counseling, as Abbi says, is not shirking responsibility, but taking ownership of it. Had I not found the help I needed this past spring, I'd have taken the bullet in the head, and that's the truth. It's been much more difficult to seek help and even more so to accept it, but it's been only helpful, not harmful. I'm proud of anyone who can ask for help and be receptive of it when it's needed. It's so much easier just to exit stage left and pray no-one will take notice. People usually don't, and that's a damn shame.

If you see a drowning man, should he be thrown a lifeline, or left to tread water, struggling for one last breath until he's exhausted, gives up the fight, and goes down?

There have been cases where someone who was perceived as coping, goes into counselling and then can't keep the thoughts at bay anymore. Lack of sleep, nightmares when they can sleep, going back to the original situation which started it all. Counselling can remove the wall which protects people from what happened to them. Removing the wall means they can finally deal with it, but often it means they cannot function anymore.

And did they ever need to deal with it, if their wall was that good at keeping the memories from them?

Difficult one, you don't kow the answer for each individual until the end of their life.

That's a good point, Kaz. It's a very personal thing, determining whether one is better off leaving the wall intact or not. I'm not entirely decided on that one myself.

Which is connected to the point I made in my last posting... We just can't tell.

As for:
'If you see a drowning man, should he be thrown a lifeline, or left to tread water, struggling for one last breath until he's exhausted, gives up the fight, and goes down?'

I'd choose to see it as:
'If you see a man having difficulty swimming, should you automatically throw him a lifeline assuming that he is in trouble, when maybe what he learns now will help him swim better in the future.'

But the cases I really started this thread about was auto/plane/ boating accidents. That kind of thing rather than abuse...