Calling Troll On New Posters

[Deleted member 28812]

I am not sure if I should join this discussion. Am I the only one who cannot understand why the Crit A includes some things why it excludes others?

- Why is losing a loved one to an accident counted as Crit A but seeing a loved one die a slowly and painful death from cancer not?
- Why is living in a poor country and seeing your children go hungry not counted as Crit A but selling your body to get some food for them is?
Obviously the person prefers this to poverty.

 

[anthony]

I guess between my f*cked perspective atm, reading things I thought I saw, and my mood

We all have PTSD... so the same thing affects us all. PTSD is perfectly acceptable... and to be honest, most with PTSD here to help themselves and get support, normally come good and get on with becoming part of the community quickly.

if @anthony had the time and energy, then he might even implement that system

We staff do have a system in place... I merely outlined the broad aspects here. We have a process in place that weeds problematic members out / they hang themselves without our help typically, or they come good and our system demonstrated why we have our staff policies and procedures in place.

We are quite good at it, and we rarely get it wrong, as a collective staff. Obviously everyone makes mistakes... and our processes are quite refined nowadays.

I think @anthony, Link Removed and all the moderators do a great job.

To be honest, it shouldn't be stated about myself and Nicolette... as staff work collectively as a cohesive unit. Once a staff member learns the policies and procedures, builds confidence, they action as policy outlines, which could be quickly OR over a period of time.

People mentioning me... really shouldn't, as my role is more oversight of the entire community. Staff do more of the day to day, hands on stuff with members. My role is marketing, branding, bringing new users here, boosting the site, fixing technical issues, looking at new ones, and overall oversight of the community and staff. Staff (all except me) do most of the hands on work here with members and content... and they make most of the decisions here as a collective.

 

[joeylittle]

- Why is losing a loved one to an accident counted as Crit A but seeing a loved one die a slowly and painful death from cancer not?

The difference between an electric shock and being slowly squeezed by a vise. In order to create the neurological event that creates PTSD, there's a need for something to be extremely intense. Inciting a deep level of fear. I cannot say its easy to watch a loved one die slowly, but I can say that neurologically we process it differently because there is time to absorb the fact that the person is dying, while they are still alive. And remember, not all CritA trauma results in PTSD - its got to affect the brain in a very particular way.

- Why is living in a poor country and seeing your children go hungry not counted as Crit A but selling your body to get some food for them is?

I actually don't think prostitution would be covered in CritA - because it is entered into purposefully. Now, were an act of prostitution to turn into a sexual assault or rape or threat of death, then you would have CritA.

Seeing your children starve - awful, horrible, and of course, traumatic on a daily basis in many ways. But a PTSD-inducing Trauma event, no - because you are watching it progress. Seeing your child get shot would incite a very different response.

This is why there's no comparing trauma, because awful is awful is awful. But this is also why anyone who has experienced the very distinct power of a CritA trauma will recognize that someone coming here and talking about being broken up with causing PTSD -they really don't get it. Not the same.

 

[Lucycat]

What I dislike about the Criterion A discussion - in relation to new members- is that the very term 'Criterion A' is jargon. It means nothing to people outside the world of mental health. Actually for all I know there could be a structural engineers manual that has Criterion A in relation to how stable a bridge is.....

We all know what we are talking about - but others don't. I am not saying that we should not help them and guide them - if they wish to learn more, but we should not assume such knowledge.

 

[Deleted member 28812]

I think that makes a lot of sense @joeylittle. Thanks for taking the time explaining.

 

[Queen Boudica]

Maybe a digression of topic, but, I noticed something on twitter today a psychologist saying that many people will be distressed or even traumatised by the Bali 8 shootings. I got pretty edgy at that statement. Although I am pretty upset by this shooting and the graphic details coming out in the media and the build up to this and I really feel so appalled by the whole thing, to say that some people (apart from the close relatives and friends) who have no direct association with the victims could be traumatised, i.e. suffer from trauma irks me somewhat. I don't know I think this is why so many could be putting PTSD symptoms onto stuff like this, which is I don't think it is ethical for a psychologist to come out with that kind of statement. So I do have some sympathy for those who come on here thinking they have PTSD when this sort of stuff is going round in the media and even being cited by psychologists.

 

[anthony]

The problem is that people read comments online, and take it as though they're factual, instead of just a persons opinion. The followers are as idiotic IMHO... do your research and learn from citations and sourced documents. Most books are opinionated content, even when referenced, the majority are the authors opinions, yet people read them as though factual.

Its like reading Van der Kolk... he's right into Psychomotor therapy as the solution to complex trauma, yet studies really don't conclude his view. When you combine it with him, his attitude, education and methods, then it may just work... but hand it to the majority of psychologists / psychiatrists, useless. Authors quite often write books full of their own studies, most of which have little peer validity. Interesting, quite often... but peer reviewed? Not even close. Published doesn't mean valid... it just means you wrote an interesting piece that gives food for thought, not necessarily a factual conclusion. One study doesn't mean much either, unless the participant numbers are enormous by study standards.

Which leads to these Bali executions. Some person posts their opinion about it being traumatising, then others interpret that as though factual, and piece PTSD to it, claiming they have it with no tie to the person or family.

I think the criterion A discussion here with new members who claim things outside of it, is a very valid discussion in order to discover whether the person has something that meets criterion A for diagnosis, or whether they're just another person trying to fit themselves or problem into PTSD, when in fact they have another problem/s, not being PTSD.

 

[scout86]

I have one small problem with the whole "Criterion A" thing (beyond that it's jargon). Science is still in the process of figuring this stuff out. Right now, "they" think they know what kinds of trauma are required to produce the condition. I'm sure that they're right, as far as it goes. I'm nearly equally sure this will be modified over time. To drag out another of my endless horse analogies, back in the day when I was training horses, I got a far number of horses where I was told they'd been "abused". They were definitely F'd up, but no one knew their history and I couldn't ask them to get comfortable on the couch and tell me about themselves. We dealt with what was there and I didn't concern myself a whole lot with how it GOT there. I tend to look at people the same way.

Near as I can tell, among the different therapeutic approaches, some focus a lot of attention on "what happened", directly. My T, as luck would have it, really, tends to focus on "Where are you now and where would you like to end up? How do we get there from here?"

If someone truly has the symptoms of PTSD, it doesn't matter all that much to me how they think they got there. They could even be WRONG about how they got there. I can actually see how, for some people with the "right" wiring, dealing day in and day out with the care of someone dying of a horrible disease, if they feel trapped and helpless in particular, could produce changes in the brain similar to those you find in some people who have dealt with other long running trauma. Not saying I'm SURE it's true, just that I can easily imagine the possibility.

 

[jaccat]

Not having been here so long myself, and from my own experience, I can see an issue with the criterion A thing. I came here not long after I had been diagnosed. I recognised myself in the symptoms but had not yet reached the point of understanding how my trauma was classified as criterion A. To my therapist, and probably to many of the people who have read my history, it was blindingly obvious. But not to me at the time. It took a while longer before I had one of those 'Oh, right, that's what happened' moments.

I should add I received nothing but kindness and good advice when I first arrived, and was certainly not judged for any of my 'apparent' failings.

 

[shimmerz]

Science is still in the process of figuring this stuff out.

I very much agree with this. Just check the differing criteria in the iterations of the DSM and ICD to see how ignorant we have been.

It wasn't all that long ago that they used to shoot WW1 veterans for displaying symptoms of 'war neurosis' and WWII veterans were lobotomized. We have a long way to go before the psychiatric societies actually understand this properly. I think they do the best they can, but that doesn't mean it is good enough for some.

 

[Neverthesame]

I am trying to figure out the exact meaning of trolling.

The way it explained to me, was to think of it less like a troll (mythical Scandinavian creature). But more as a trawling simillarly to a fishing boat. The fisherman (troll). Casts out their net (Inflamitory statement or question). Then slowly moves around waiting for the fish to get caught up in the net (drama).

 

[ihateusernames]

I was a bit taken aback with how 'seemingly' comfortable many folks here are able to freely open up. I wish I had answers for aiding newbies into this process without becoming trolls.

I think I understand this. I actually find it easier to open up in an anonymous environment. Someone sitting there in front of me, it's terrifying and threatening to me. My therapist- while I was going to her- would talk about disturbing incidents from her own life in relation to mine with such calm and reserve. Where I can't get more than 5 vague words out without breaking down. She had no such intent, but nevertheless, this made me feel like a failure. And like I would never ever be like that so I might as well give up now. I understand that it takes time to get there. Years and years and years of therapy are probably what it took for her to get there. It's not a quick fix. Knowing that didn't make me feel any less inadequate or hopeless, though. lol

Why is living in a poor country and seeing your children go hungry not counted as Crit A but selling your body to get some food for them is?

I was under the impression that the opposite of this would be accurate. Selling your body, unless you're forced by somebody else would not be. Whereas the threat of starvation for yourself or your family- if it's truly life threatening starvation- would be.