Criterion A, Loopholes And Denial.

[Abstract]

If I think this is part of the process it brings me a lot of calm. I can deal with anything if there is a purpose or if I know what is happening. I feel truly crazy and that is what seems hardest to deal with.

You have made strings

Trying to be proactive here and so thinking of what progress I have made to see if it helps:
* I am able to write which would have been impossible before.
* I am managing to come back to threads after I start them. Something that was near impossible before.
* Am tolerating a bit more contact on line.
* Am not feeling as intense distress or fear after writing things or obsession about deleting.
* Am managing a little more in life. No quite so avoidant and and a little less late for everything.

 

[Abstract]

Any time I manage to do anything it seems I say, "see... I don't have PTSd and am just fine."

 

[ninja]

Abstract,

What does the PTSD label give to you that you can't give yourself without it? (If you feel up to answering, that is.)

I understand and can completely relate to the burning desire to simultaneously experience and evaluate one's feelings. However, when one does that, s/he is actively manipulating his/her feelings to fit some kind of picturesque version of who s/he is. The desire to do so and the vision of who s/he is trying to fit into comes from the traumatic experiences and disorder not the "self." Things needn't be true to be rational. Likewise, things needn't be false to be irrational. Trust in your heart for a little bit. :)

Big hugs :hug: – you are not alone!

 

[Pencil]

I say, "see... I don't have PTSd and am just fine.

I do the same.

 

[Abstract]

Thanks Ninja! Shall make myself be up to it. Anything that might help this is worth it. Answering this slightly differently as there is no simple thing that the label gives me. It is always paradoxical.

PTSD label give

PTSD means:
* I need therapy.
* I need to deal with stuff that happened.
* Things that happened were not right.
* Things that happened hurt me.
* Symptoms are about the things that happened and my way of coping with it.
* I am weak to be affected by things that happened.
* I am pathetic.
* I have no right to be affected in any way by the non criteria A stuff that happened to me.
* I am trapped in this disorder.
* Means I have to trust someone in some way.
* I am not resilient.

Not having PTSD means many complex things but as an attempt to simplify shall divide in three main lots:

Not PTSD A means:
* Symptoms are because I am crazy.
* I dont need to deal with the things that happened.
* Getting help might lead to labels and things that I don't want (not that any labels are welcome).
* I should be locked up and maybe people will think so too.
* I am bad.
* I won't get better.
* It means I have to trust someone in some way.

Not PTSD B means:
* I don't need therapy (yay!).
* I am fine.
* I just need to live my life.
* This is all caused by my imagination and I can fix it all by leaving it behind.
* I don't have symptoms.
* Nothing bad happened.
* If anything happened it never affected me at all.
* I am a liar, fabricator and have a factitious disorder.
* I am neurotic, attention seeking and a drama queen.
* I am harming others and am an offence to their real pain and struggles.


Not PTSD C:
* I am tough.
* I don't need therapy.
* Nothing affected me.
* I have dealt with what I can.
* I am resilient.
* I need to get on with life.
* I don't need anyone.
* My problems are resolved.

This is a bit like describing the Oklahoma tornado as being a some swirly wind. ;)And the other thing is that these "modes" are not divided up like that. They cross categories. For example the self critical side seems to be a separate thing and undermines all of those different thoughts.

 

[Abstract]

, s/he is actively manipulating his/her feelings to fit some kind of picturesque version of who s/he is.... the vision of who s/he is trying to fit into comes from the traumatic experiences and disorder not the "self." Things needn't be true to be rational. Likewise, things needn't be false to be irrational. Trust in your heart for a little bit.

Thanks Ninja! If only it was ever just plain picturesque! ;) That would be nice.

But I think I understand some of what you are saying. I am beginning to think the constant attempts to evaluate and control (which seems to be a deeply engrained default behaviour) certainly seems to act as extra doses of fuel for the whole chaotic mess.

I have always hung onto rational for dear life. I am very aware that all of this is the opposite of rational. False. Rational. True. Irrational. :confused::bag:
Thank you and thanks for the hug.

 

[Abstract]

I do the same.

Thanks for telling me Pencil. Glad I am not alone but sorry that you do this.

 

[anthony]

1. What constitutes "witnessed" in relation to PTSD and what does not?
2. What constitutes "confronted with" and what does not?
3. What constitutes "threatened" and what does not?
4. What constitutes "physical integrity" and what does not?
5. What happens if with one incident there is total removal of self through depersonalisation/dissociation (physically and emotionally) and therefore "intense helplessness" but possibly no "horror"?
6. How would neglect fit this or not (for my understanding rather than anything else)?

Clear examples of what would and would not fit would be helpful. As would explanations. How does age affect these or not according to the officials?

For starters, I would forget all of the above, because as of today, the DSM 5 criterion is now officially in effect, which is not the above. You will notice a significant difference in words used between the above and below (new criterion last published). You only have a single criterion to meet, not dual, before continuing to meet symptoms.

Exposure to actual or threatened a) death, b) serious injury, or c) sexual violation, in one or more of the following ways:

1. directly experiencing the traumatic event(s)
2. witnessing, in person, the traumatic event(s) as they occurred to others
3. learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend; cases of actual or threatened death must have been violent or accidental
4. experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse); this does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work-related.

Firstly, threatened is quite clear in the context that both the threat and person being threatened, must be realistic. A disgruntled ex or such with no violent history saying their going to kill you does not make a real threat. An ex with a history of violence is real because the person making the threat has a history and the person being threatened has experienced that history. The same goes with being held-up or such... a person must have a gun, knife, et cetera, that gives you an actual threat for your life that this stranger could, or will, use this to take your life.

Actual is pretty straight forward.

Directly experiencing is straight forward.

Witnessing is now explained better, being in person, you actually watching the event occur, and not on TV, playback, or after the fact.

Learning about it is quite specific, being the person must be 'close' family or friend, not someone you see once a month, work with but have no social friendship with, so forth.

Experiencing repeated exposure is quite clear, and really only relevant to certain jobs that deal with cleaning up traumatic events.

As nobody knows exactly what the new final criterion has, because the publication is still being printed, the final version will get released here once I have it in my hot little hands from the post office.

 

[Abstract]

Hi Anthony. I did actually hope you would answer. I shall reply properly later after I have had a think.

in my hot little hands

The new criteria is actually helpful for me. I think it is clearer in general but also I do not believe I ever had anyone directly threaten me with a knife or gun in relation to anything that traumatised me. And there were ways I could look at the first criteria list that would make me believe I don't fit.

To be honest there is no way that I can do that with the new criteria if I am in my right mind. There are still loopholes of course as just because I have experiences that fit the criteria does not mean that I am traumatised by them.

Shall wait in anticipation for your little hot hands to hand over the goodies. Thanks.

 

[anthony]

I've already ordered the DSM 5, I believe it is printed for release in around a week, then I should have it June some time, at which point I will update relevant areas of this site with the new criterion.

I wouldn't say there are loopholes in the diagnostic criterion, but more that criterion creep is the problem due to how each person interprets certain words for themselves, beyond what the actual DSM text has specifically outlined them for use. It is this interpretation that caused the issues with the DSM IV version, which they fixed in this later version by being far more specific in the actual criterion directly, not leaving it within hidden definition or information page which people just weren't reading and assimilating with diagnosis.

I guarantee there will be shifty therapists who choose to loosely interpret words in this new version, in order to meet what they feel should be the criterion, and not what is outlined for them. If this wasn't already the case, there is no way in hell we would see people come online here stating they've been diagnosed by a therapist with PTSD for relationship breakdowns, breaking a bone in an accident, minor schoolyard bullying that is normal with youth, and so forth that we've seen.

 

[ninja]

Abstract,

I did not mean to imply that what you are going through is in any way simple! I am so sorry if it came off that way. I am going to think about what you've said for a little while and respond when I have gathered my thoughts a bit more.

 

[Abstract]

Abstract,

I did not mean to imply that what you are going through is in any way simple! .

Oh I am sorry Ninja! I never meant to imply you did! Just trying to find words for things that there are no words for really. I appreciated your question. And no pressure.