Unburdened by false humility, postmodern trauma activists claim to have understood for the first time what drives all of human suffering
Trauma DispatchTrauma news you can't get anywhere else. |
|
Trauma DispatchTrauma news you can't get anywhere else. |
|
CATEGORY: CONTROL OF LANGUAGE AND IDEAS International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies logo Written by Michael S. Scheeringa Read time: ~2.5 minutes To solve complex social problems, at least two things are needed: (1) Policy makers need information outside their areas of expertise in digestible formats, and (2) that information often must come from scientists. Scientists’ reason to exist in society is, in distilled form, to extract truth from the natural world for the rest of us. For psychological trauma, the main organization of scientists is the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS). The worldview of those who contribute to ISTSS recommendations, however, does not always represent what the evidence says about trauma. Since its founding in 1985 as the Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (“International” was added in 1990), the Society has done more than any other organization, by far, for the promotion of good science and competent clinical work to assess and treat trauma victims. They have published the main journal for trauma research, the Journal of Traumatic Stress, since 1988, and hold an annual conference every November. I joined in 1994 and presented my work at nearly every annual conference for twenty-three years. I, like almost all trauma researchers, considered it my professional home. I was “sort-of famous” within the group as one member told me when seeing my name tag at a conference. I attended my last ISTSS conference, however, in 2017. I had been dreading the conferences for several years because, in part, the presentations were increasingly uninformative lectures about events that were not traumas or theories that weren’t true. I had tried to keep it interesting for myself by going to the audience microphone in the question-and-answer periods, but if I dared question their dogmas, presenters stared back blankly as if I had just suggested killing their pets. Viewpoint diversity? No thanks. Due to the nature of trauma, ISTSS had always been forced to struggle with slapdash research and dubious ideas. What’s new has been the rise of advocacy. The rise was gradual, and perhaps inevitable, as the concept of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) became increasingly well-known through the 1990s and 2000s. By 2005, advocacy was on steroids. Activist-minded researchers expanded the notion of trauma well beyond life-threatening experiences to include everyday stress experiences (e.g., neglect, emotional abuse, divorce, poverty) in order to draw attention. Complex PTSD was tacitly accepted as a valid disorder even though there is zero validation data and it had been savaged by multiple experts [1-3]. The concept of toxic stress—that psychological trauma permanently damages the brain—was embraced as canon by invited keynote speakers and Society reports even though the only supporting human data comes from weak cross-sectional studies. Pre-trauma prospective studies fail to support it. Climate change was endorsed as a source of trauma in an ISTSS brief even though the level of threat and the man-made theory have been debunked by many credible scientists, and, even if it were true, is more of an everyday stress than a life-threatening trauma. The list goes on to racial trauma, historical trauma, intergenerational transmission of trauma and other unproven theories. In the 2023 conference program, nearly a third of the symposia were ideologically-based on complex PTSD, toxic stress, adverse childhood experiences, equity, race, COVID, or other non-trauma experiences. Why Did This Happen? These theories were invoked for the humanitarian project to conquer suffering at the expense of other virtues that parallels the progressive leftist agenda of the past century. ISTSS got a late start, but its evolution has tracked closely to the progressive ideological capture of academia in general, including the acceleration of more radical woke movements in the past decade. The mission of ISTSS has been impacted by trauma activists to become a diluted archive of uncritical psychology, politics, sociology, and anthropology based on emotional appeals to perfect society, presented as science. The cost of this advocacy is high. One cannot endlessly redefine concepts to suit activist needs irrespective of data without eventually sacrificing truth, honesty, and holding the respect of others. While ISTSS still holds a seat at the table for publishing and presenting good studies, as long as they don’t contradict the canon too directly, policy makers should not mistake it for behaving with a purity of mission to find truth. REFERENCES [1] Shawn P. Cahill et al., "Sequential Treatment for Child Abuse-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Methodological Comment on Cloitre, Koenen, Cohen, and Han (2002)," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72 (2004): 543-548. [2] Dean G. Kilpatrick. "A special section on complex trauma and a few thoughts about the need for more rigorous research on treatment efficacy, effectiveness, and safety," Journal of Traumatic Stress 18 (2005): 379-384, p. 383. [3] Patricia A. Resick et al. "A Critical Evaluation of the Complex PTSD Literature: Implications for DSM-5," Journal of Traumatic Stress 25 (2012): 241-251 Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page. CATEGORY: CONTROL OF LANGUAGE AND IDEAS Robert Allan Shapiro, M.D. Source: Cincinnati City Council Read time: 3.2 minutes plus a four-minute video This Happened A coalition of scientists and community activists made a lengthy presentation to a committee of the Cincinnati City Council on April 2, 2024. Their aim was to formally present the underlying science and scope of their proposed model for government action to commence large-scale systemic change by trying to address stress and trauma as underlying causes of inequity in child outcomes. Who Did This? The scientist in the coalition tasked with presenting the brain science data was pediatrician Robert Shapiro, M.D. of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Shapiro completed his pediatric medicine training in 1984. He has been the secondary author on twelve peer-reviewed studies that covered mostly child abuse, adverse childhood experiences, and parent coaching. He has not been the first author on a paper, been the principal investigator on a research grant, or studied brain imaging. The Presentation The 1.6 hour presentation employed the usual logic of the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) narrative that stress and trauma cause permanent brain and body damage that leads to a wide variety of mental problems, physical diseases, and social dysfunctions. Shapiro’s first slide was a side-by-side comparison of two MRI brain scans labeled No Maltreatment and Maltreated (see above). The number of purple circles and connecting lines is obviously fewer in the Maltreated brain. In the four minute video clip below, Shapiro initially gave a vague explanation of the figure, then the chairwoman redirected him to give a clearer explanation, which was still vague, and then another council member, still confused, asked him bluntly, “Doctor, what do the purple spots represent?” Analysis Shapiro understood almost nothing accurately about the brain scans. A reference was not given for the original study that produced the brain scans. We were, however, able to locate it within a few seconds with Google Image. The original study was Teicher et al. (2014) in Biological Psychiatry.[1] The original figure is shown below for comparison. The figure represents centrality of one brain area in relation to over one hundred other possible brain areas. Centrality was based on cortical thickness of an area, meaning, very roughly, if two areas have relatively greater thickness they are considered to be connected to a greater degree. The connecting lines and the size of the circles were based on a complex permutation of four different centrality measures. In sum, each figure is presumed to show how a network of connectivity emanates from one brain area (the green circle). Shapiro never mentioned centrality or connectivity. Teicher et al. found significant differences in networks emanating from nine different brain areas. They made figures for only three of them, and Shapiro presented only one of the figures. Greater centrality was shown in the Not Maltreated group compared to the Maltreated group for the left anterior cingulate, which is the only figure Shapiro showed. Greater centrality was shown, however, in the Maltreated group compared to the Not Maltreated group for the right anterior insula and the right precuneus, which are the two figures Shapiro omitted, and those are reproduced below. Obviously, if Shapiro had shown these two figures, the status of brains of the Maltreated group vis-a-vis the Not Maltreated group would have appeared much more complex. Other misinformation from Dr. Shapiro:
When showing brains scans in this manner to legislators, it raises many concerns. For example, the legislators were not told that this represented one of several ways to measure connectivity. They did not know that this method of measuring so-called connectivity was based on cortical thickness of structures. It was not based on functional MRI that showed brains in action; it was not based on blood flow to areas or on neuronal activity. They were not told that this research is based on a shaky assumption that increased connectivity between two brain regions somehow stimulates cortical thickness growth during brain development. The mechanism of how that stimulation might happen is mysterious. They were not told that this study has never been replicated. They were not told that other methods for measuring connectivity do not fully replicate these results. They were not told that the data were limited by being cross-sectional, meaning that the connectivity patterns probably pre-existed any life events and more likely represent vulnerability or resilience factors, and are not the outcomes of life events. They were not told that connectivity maps do not yet reliably equate with functional importance like behaviors, symptoms, or morals. Any connection between connectivity maps and real-life function is assumed. The presentation obviously worked. It is clear the three council members were enthusiastic about the program. In trying to solve complex social problems, legislators must rely on scientists for truth. When scientists become persuaders for a cause, this often corrupts the process. As Paul Cairney, a professor of politics and public policy, wrote, the danger, or perhaps the intended outcome, of effective persuasion, is that “scientists may exaggerate scientific consensus on ‘the evidence’ when they become advocates.” [2] Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page. References [1] Martin H. Teicher, Carl M. Anderson, Kyoko Ohashi, Ann Polcari (2014). Childhood Maltreatment: Altered Network Centrality of Cingulate, Precuneus, Temporal Pole and Insula. Biological Psychiatry 76(4): 297-305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.09.016. [2] Paul Cairney, The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). CATEGORY: CONTROL OF LANGUAGE AND IDEAS Jack Shonkoff, M.D., founder of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University Source: The Trouble With Trauma Read time: 2.5 minutes This Happened For the past two decades, a Harvard pediatrician and his university-funded center spearheaded the invention and dissemination of the term “toxic stress” and helped create an international phenomenon that has persuaded much of the world that there is a public health crisis. Who Did This? Jack Shonkoff is a highly-respected pediatrician, who, over a nearly forty-year career, has over 150 publications, and has been honored with many awards and influential positions. In 2006, he founded the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University with the intention of using scientific knowledge to address the problems of children dealing with adversity. The Premise Shortly before founding the Center, Shonkoff created the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. This council of experts crafted a framework around the concept of “toxic stress” on how to improve outcomes for children. The framework was distilled into a policy-guided-by-science playbook with four steps: 1) Emphasize that we’ve hit a wall. A massive list of poor outcomes— poverty, poor academic performance, crime, drug abuse, murder, domestic violence, and multigenerational racism— just will not go away with current efforts. 2) Claim that it’s nearly all due to stress and trauma. Children experience high rates of trauma, violence, poverty, neglect, racism, and rampant disparities. By assertion, any rational person can see that stress and trauma must be the causes of poor outcomes and represent the roots of social class disparities in health. 3) Super-charge the claim as permanent biological damage. To make matters more urgent, assert that these experiences of stress and trauma cause permanent damage to brains and bodies. 4) Billions must be invested in trauma-informed approaches. This situation constitutes a public health crisis, perhaps the greatest of all, and the commensurate response must be massive prevention and intervention programs in the realm of public health. Analysis The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, despite what one might infer from its name, is not a council representing the nation; it is a private group of eleven-members, four of whom are from Harvard. They were likely hand-picked for their shared vision that concurs with the toxic stress narrative. Toxic stress is not a scientific term. The Council’s own literature is surprisingly candid in acknowledging that they invented the term toxic stress. The members of the Council agreed to create and disseminate the phrase toxic stress to convey their message to the public because, by their own admission, “just saying ‘stress’ more loudly wasn’t going to get them where they needed to go”[1] To fashion credibility for the concept of toxic stress, they invented two other types of stress: positive stress and tolerable stress. These types were not based on validation from science. The Council’s unswerving assertion that stress and trauma cause poor outcomes and permanent brain damage is, in fact, controversial and has not held up under pre-trauma prospective studies in humans [2-4]. The Council has been shy about acknowledging that one hundred percent of the adverse child experiences studies they cite to support their assertions have been cross-sectional surveys, which have zero power to prove causative theories. Prior to 2009, the phrase toxic stress had never been used, except by the pediatrician Shonkoff, in a peer-reviewed science journal to describe a cause of human psychological problems. Despite the shaky evidence base for the concept of toxic stress, it has proven highly attractive, and implementations of the playbook have become commonplace in a relatively short span of about ten years. Why Is This Happening? The idea that humans are highly malleable, such that human nature is almost completely molded by life experiences, and that individual differences in success or failure are due almost wholly to outside forces as opposed to unchanging personal traits caused by genetics, is consistent with the progressive liberal agenda of the past hundred years. As described in The Trouble With Trauma [5], one speculation to explain the driving motives of progressives can be based on moral foundations theory: This type of activism is driven by individuals with skewed moral foundations that disproportionately favor care for the disadvantaged even when it defies the evidence and may constrain other moral concerns such as individual freedom, tradition, loyalty, patriotism, and liberty. Should This Be Attempted? The toxic stress/ACEs playbook is based on a fatal conceit of believing that we possess the knowledge of what causes disparate social and behavioral outcomes for children, and that much, and perhaps all, of that cause is trauma and adversity. Attempting to guide policies with knowledge that we do not in fact possess, is likely to cause much waste and harm. REFERENCES [1] Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. "A Decade of Science Informing Policy: The Story of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child," (2014). [2] Julia A. DiGangi et al. “Pretrauma risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review of the literature.” Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013):728-744. [3] Andrea Danese et al. "The origins of cognitive deficits in victimized children: Implications for neuroscientists and clinicians," American Journal of Psychiatry 174 (2017): 349-361. [4] Michael S. Scheeringa. "Reexamination of diathesis stress and neurotoxic stress theories: A qualitative review of pre-trauma neurobiology in relation to posttraumatic stress symptoms," International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (2020). [5] Michael S. Scheeringa (2022). The Trouble With Trauma: The Search to Discover How Beliefs Become Facts. Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press. ISBN 978-1949481563 Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page. Intergenerational trauma: Is it generational? Is it trauma? Are there really five signs of proof?2/2/2024
CATEGORY: CONTROL OF LANGUAGE AND IDEAS
Source: Kenny, Business Insider Read time: 3.2 minutes This Happened A reporter wrote an article on five signs that you may have intergenerational trauma by interviewing one psychotherapist. Who Did This? Serafina Kenny is a health reporter at Business Insider. Her work includes multiple articles based on the views of single experts on diet, longevity, relationship problems, sexology, and dermatology. Among her accomplishments on her bio page on Business Insider includes “She has a Masters degree in Gender, Sexuality and Culture; . . . and has hosted a feminist pop culture podcast.” For this article, Kenny interviewed Hendrix Hammond as an expert on intergenerational trauma. Hammond, based in London, has a master’s degree in family & couple psychotherapy. He has provided workshops on a variety of topics including: The importance of identity and intersectionality; Race and racism in the workplace; and Applying systemic ideas in educational settings. He devoted a page on his personal website to promote Black Lives Matter. The Claim Experiencing trauma and stress can negatively impact individuals who can then pass down to their children a host of maladaptive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors through repetition. The negative impacts on children include relationship dynamics, unconscious thinking patterns, and personality traits. Each impact can be passed down through multiple generations. Analysis Hammond asserted that the following signs indicate that you likely are the victim of intergenerational trauma: (1) You’re very suspicious of people. Your mother or father experienced a trauma that involved betrayal and taught them to be suspicious, and you, as an infant, mirrored this until it became part of your personality. (2) You need to be around people all the time. Your mother or father experienced a trauma and reacted by always “looking around to check if they have enough around them to help them survive,” and then you, as a child, mirrored this and integrated it into your thinking and behavior. (3) You struggle to regulate your emotions. Your parent(s) responded to traumatic events with abnormal numbness or excessive emotionality, and this “gets modeled to their children." (4) You may not have the tools to deal with low moods and mental health issues. If your family never modeled the practice of reaching out to speak to other people to manage their low moods, you never learned how to do that yourself, and, according to Hendrix, “it can quickly turn into extended periods of depression.” (5) You self-harm or have destructive coping mechanisms. Cutting, burning, undereating, or taking risks with your life are other indicators that you modeled after your parents to be “really repressed” in your emotional responses to life. The attractiveness of the theory is obvious because children feel unconscious connections to parents, and we can easily observe so many other examples where children learn culture, language, and skills from parents. But the concept has received criticism from scientists for multiple concerns. One concern is that the theory of intergenerational trauma is not needed to explain why children are similar to parents. Children inherit many similarities through genetics. Another concern is that the “generational” aspect of the theory is difficult to defend. If individuals can be permanently negatively impacted by repetitive exposure from parents, why don’t individuals unconsciously integrate maladaptive thoughts and behaviors of others they frequently observe such as best friends and favorite teachers? And why do some children turn out very different from their parents? Another concern is that many of the life experiences that allegedly impact parents are not traumas. Trauma has a specific meaning in psychiatry of being life-threatening because those are the types of experiences that typically cause posttraumatic stress disorder. By promoting the idea that everyday stress is the more potent “trauma,” when it’s not, the health advice is unlikely to truly help anybody. Another concern is that the theory is based on influences passing from unconscious mind to unconscious mind by repetition, but the mechanism of how that happens, whether it be psychodynamic or physiological in nature, is unproven. Proof of a mechanism is not needed for a theory to be true, but it would help with plausibility. A physiobiological mechanism that is frequently proposed is epigenetics, which is most frequently described as the methylation of DNA causing changes in gene expression. Whether methylation patterns can be transmitted from parent to child remains unproven and is highly controversial in humans. Kenny mentioned the epigenetics theory as a possible mechanism, but to her credit, qualified it as needing more research to confirm it. Why Did This Happen? Despite the lack of evidence for intergenerational trauma, the concept first gained traction in psychology to explain problems in children of Holocaust survivors. The concept has been used often to explain problems in descendants of slavery, refugees, and other forms of oppression. The phrase intergenerational trauma is one of many attempts to control language that have been promoted in the trauma research and clinical fields over the past thirty years. Other phrases for concepts that lack sufficient evidence include toxic stress, adverse childhood experiences, complex PTSD, and racial trauma. All of these have in common the aim to control the idea of human nature as having brains that are fragile and nearly all problems in disadvantaged groups are due to life experiences, as opposed to genetics; and the solution to most of these problems requires revolutionary change in how society treats disadvantaged individuals through expansion of governmental entitlements. Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page. |
Archives
May 2024
TRAUMA DISPATCH
|