Proposed Negative -> Positive Belief Pendulation Technique in EMDR or EMI Therapy

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
I offer for discussion and feedback a possible technique for using negative plus positive beliefs in the context of EMDR or EMI therapy. First I'll describe the technique and then explain my theory for why it might be useful in certain cases.

It's widely accepted that some negative belief(s) is at the core of many mental health problems. How to mitigate that belief? Or, modify it to make it less destructive? Possibly replace it with a constructive positive belief?

There are endless published examples of negative beliefs, often with candidate countervailing positive beliefs. One may freely pick from existing lists or use them to inspire variations. It seems to me that it would be better to choose a positive belief statement that is incongruent - yet not mutually exclusive - with the negative belief. E.g., if the chosen negative were: "I am bad" then it would be better to compose a positive belief statement such as: "I am usually pretty good".

The idea is to dilute the negative belief with the positive; or, over-lay the negative with the positive. Not necessarily to persuade the mind to completely replace the negative with the positive. How to do so? Cognitively talking oneself into the change-of-beliefs is apt not to be very effective. EMDR and EMI therapy - i.e., a bilateral eye-movement or other bilateral stimulus is thought by those practitioners to be effective to alter neurological connections - pathways of thought or experience - to integrate a negative thought/sensation with other positive thoughts/sensations. Suppose this to be true.

Suppose one chooses a negative + positive-yet-incongruent belief statement pair for an EMDR / EMI session. Contemplate the pair of statements while following the bilateral movement (traditionally, a visual movement). If the foregoing suppositions are true, the statement pairs should integrate. The distinctive idea here is that one could pendulate swiftly between the positive and negative statements.

The orthodox EMDR and EMI approaches are to first become deeply in-touch with the problematic memory (belief, etc.) until it resonates somatically. Thereafter, install the positive alternative positive vision. OK, no objection to this technique. Only a question: Is it essential to segregate the positive from the negative experience/memory/vision/etc? This is an important question to comment/critique on.

What if rapid pendulation between positive and negative belief statement pairs were more effective than the orthodox segregating and becoming deeply connected with (first) negative (subsequently) positive statements in turn? This is pure conjecture, of course. What if this proposed technique were equally effective with the orthodox? (Conjecture.) And, what if the proposed technique were effective, but somewhat less effective than the orthodox?

If we assume that the negative belief is well-chosen, then the neural pathways are well-traveled, well exercised. Why should we presuppose that it is critical for the subject to first immerse him/herself deeply in the experience of this negative belief? We can admit that it might be very helpful to do so; but that's not the question posed here. Is it really critical? i.e., to so first and fully immerse deeply in the experience of the negative belief before pendulating to the positve?

Of all the available therapeutic techniques, what's the argument for any novel proposed technique?

Orthodox techniques mainly (from my limited observations) rely on confirmation of a candidate memory, feeling, belief by some somatic sensation. The subject is asked to contemplate a blue sky; is there any somatic confirmation? If not, then that's probably not a component of the subject's mental suffering. Contemplate a black sky; somatic confirmation? If so, then we're over the target! Orthodox techniques are very dependent upon a search for relevant events/memories which can be confirmed by somatic reactions to their contemplation.

How to proceed when there are few, if any, memories/cognitions/images/belief-statements with somatic effect?

When traumas were pre-verbal the subject has little alternative but to grope in the dark for guesses as to those memories. Best one could do is identify some feeling/belief which is vague such as “I’m not safe” or “. . . good enough”. Or, to imagine some traumatic experience such as being left to cry in a crib by an unresponsive mother; being spanked, etc. Whatever one comes up with probably won’t hit the target precisely. If "complex" there wouldn't be a single precise target. Even if there were a precise target as with a single traumatic event (e.g., being dropped) the present day triggers won’t pull that precise trigger exactly. E.g., the precise pre-verbal trauma probably isn't playing-out in the subject's adult life.

The rational for the proposed technique recognizes the imprecision about identifying original traumas and shaping inoculations against future triggering events. Identifying candidate negative beliefs is apt to be no less precise than trying to conjure-up pre-verbal memories with somatic content.

Moreover, it's widely believed that a popular infantile defense against trauma is to numb-out. What do the orthodox techniques offer the subject who has little or no somatic response to contemplations of candidate pre-verbal traumas? Ask the subject to contemplate being a baby crying in a crib with hunger, wet diaper, cold, lonely. What comes up in the way of a somatic response? Nothing!

The proposed alternative is to ask if any of such traumas are reasonable candidate possibilities. If so, what beliefs might have resulted? "I'm not worthy of being fed/changed/warmed/comforted!" Or: "I won't survive!". Do these - clearly negative - beliefs resonate with current - adult - triggering scenarios? If so, we have a candidate negative belief we might choose to work with.

Orthodox techniques which depend upon articulable memories and somatic response prove wanting when the traumas are pre-verbal. They can be fruitless when the traumas were numerous events, each not especially noteworthy in itself, and long ago. When the subject's defenses detach him/her from a confirming somatic confirmation signal the problem is compounded. It is in such a context where the proposed technique might find application.

Based on everything else we know about effective (and ineffective) therapeutic techniques are there any reasons to believe - whether from logical reasoning or empirical evidence - that the proposed technique:

1. is apt to be ineffective, or at least much less effective, than the orthodox alternatives? Or,
2. is apt to be counter-productive?
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
I am not familiar wtih EMDR.
I encourage you to look into EMDR. It gets fairly consistent positive reviews for PTSD, and even to some extent for cPTSD.

Also look into EMI - Eye Movement Integration. These are competing "schools" which (according to one history I've read) have a common root: NLP. Be that as it may, it's hard to dispute that the cornerstone of bilateral stimulation - traditionally by eye movement - is common. It seems to me that the EMI formulation is the more persuasive. You will find vastly more info about EMDR than EMI; but read-up on both. I expect your interest to grow.

English is not my mother tongue
If you had not disclosed this I would never have picked up on this fact. Your English is that good. (I have a niece for whom English is a 2nd language. Yet, she too is very good in English; native proficiency according to a British-English ESL institution's testing, notwithstanding that her English exposure was purely American. I amuse myself by estimating the number of hours I'm with her before noticing an error in her English. I'll now amuse myself to see how many hours of your comments I have to read before detecting evidence that English is not your mother tongue.)
If you could put as simple words, I would appreciate of this following quote:
You two are bringing me to focus - with greater clarity - on what my own point might be. And, my point is: Might rapid pendulation between a negative and incongruent-positive pair of belief statements while rapidly pendulationg under bilateral stimulation (EMDR or EMI) be therapeutic?

I am having hard time understanding this...I am very sorry.

OK, not sure what's not clear, but here goes.

Here I am in my own stew of thoughts contemplating my proposed idea. You and the other commentator are grist for my mill. Your respective comments compel (at least invite) me to think more about my own idea. This additional input makes me think more carefully about my own idea. And that is:

- bilateral stimulation according to the EMDR / EMI technique
- negative belief statement paired with a positive belief statement
- the positive belief statement ought to be framed to be incongruent but not mutually-exclusive with the negative
- pendulation - that is, switching/swinging like a pendulum from the negative to positive, back to negative, to positive repeatedly
- performing the pendulation rapidly, about as rapidly as the bilateral stimulation yet not necessarily in-synch.

Perhaps your difficulty arose from your lack of familiarity with EMDR / EMI. To put it simply, imagine you have the ingredients for a "cocktail" in several vessels in your mind. Contemplate a Margarita. One of these ingredients is traumatic; imagine drinking shots of Tequila. (If you are not in North America you can do field research at a local bar or liquor store. Swallow a single shot of Tequila straight-up and you will recognize it as a traumatic experience. Trust me on this one.)

Your mind clearly contemplates the thought of each ingredient distinctly: the Tequila; the lime juice; the liquified sugar. As you shift your attention sequentially from one vessel to the next you have corresponding somatic reactions. Tequila => trauma. Lime juice => tart yet pleasant. Liquified sugar => sweet. (Carry on with ice and salt.) Anything in your current experience that triggers the traumatic experience of downing a shot of Tequila in a single swallow instigates suffering. Passing by a liquor store seeing a bottle of Tequila on display will be triggering.

EMDR / EMI strives to integrate your experiences, beliefs, etc. In lieu of contemplating these several ingredients separately, bring them to mind simultaneously in an integrated manner. The equivalent of watching your host mix a Margarita. Bring the several ingredients together in a cocktail shaker. Pour the mixture into a glass and enjoy. (You may sip your drink or "chug" it in consecutive gulps. Most consumers will find either experience pleasant. Should you be an exception, repeat the experiment with the recipe for Long Island Ice Tea. You will soon be floored by the experience. Again, trust me on this one.)

As in any cuisine, the art is in the careful selection of ingredients which are complementary albeit somewhat contradictory. Sweet with sour, and so forth. My idea is not to choose mutually-exclusive belief statements; e.g., "I am bad" vs "I am NOT bad" or perhaps "I am good". Dissuading the mind to completely nullify a well-entrenched (negative) belief might be difficult; or, more difficult than alternatives such as dilution or integrating with complementary alternatives. "I am usually pretty good" is an example of dilution. "I am pretty good at some things" is a complementary belief statement.

Pendulation is mixing. If you try to mix immiscible liquids such as gasoline with water they will refuse to integrate; they will separate and stay very segregated. Conversely, if you mix miscible liquids they will integrate swiftly; e.g., mix gasoline with alcohol; mix alcohol with water. You will readily accept that these pairs are miscible and will mix easily and fully successfully. Now, imagine mixing gasoline with alcohol with water. (If you are young or haven't lived in very cold climates your mind will resist believing that these three are miscible. Conversely, if you are old enough and lived in a very cold climate you will recall your father pouring alcohol into the gas tank of your car to prevent water in the tank from freezing.) For me, it's intuitive that gasoline + alcohol + water are perfectly miscible.

One does not have to introduce miscible liquids to a common vessel separately. E.g., the mixture of two distinctive beers to make a "Black and Tan". The trick is to get one beer to float on top of the other beer to give the appearance, for a time, of two immiscible liquids in a common vessel (a pint glass). In most (not all) cases, miscible liquids - or pairs of immiscible liquids such as gasoline + water and water + alcohol - need not be titrated nor added in any particular order.

I hasten to add that nitroglycerine is a mixture which must be carefully titrated. (Alfred Nobel lost a brother in an injudicious titration.)

Rapidly pendulating is analogous to swiftly adding one ingredient after another, e.g.: G + W + A + G + W + A . . . while shaking the accumulating mixture rapidly in a cocktail shaker.

This proposed technique is in sharp contrast to the standard slow pendulation; e.g., pouring one beer into a pint, letting it settle while contemplating it's rich dark color; then, adding a second beer into the same pint (brain) observing it settle on top of the first layer. Contemplating the top clear light color. Then, while gradually sipping the lighter colored (and lighter weighted) beer on top while allowing the darker beer on the bottom to slowly integrate with the lighter beer on top. Such that the integration is complete by the time you are most of the way through the full pint.

Forgive me for being unduly pedantic here. You had difficulty understanding some part (or perhaps the whole) of what I explained. Not knowing precisely which part wasn't clear I felt I ought to carefully explain each component. Not knowing your cultural background I couldn't be sure what analogies might work. However, a bilingual dictionary should serve to translate miscible/immiscible (unusual words in English) to words in your mother tongue. Likewise, Margarita, Tequila, Black and Tan should also translate. If not, I recommend field research.
I am sorry if this came out as tone deaf.
Absolutely not! Entirely to the contrary. You gave me a rationale for not feeling that there is (also) something wrong with me for having little somatic responsiveness. It is such moments of insight which I hope to get here.
I honestly think you are exploring this to see how many roads you must take to arrive what you need! and that is infinite ways.
Nope. It is, instead, a belief that there are many roads from point A to point B. Not necessarily, but as a probabilistic matter, this is my a priori assumption. Study lots of road maps. Rarely will you find a place (though they must exist) where the road lay-out is "hub and spoke" where to get from one provincial location to a different provincial location one must necessarily travel first to the "hub" at the national or provincial capital city and then on to the destination. (Where such conditions exist, it's important to recognize the possibility and not be stuck in a generally accurate belief schema rejecting the possibility of an exception.)

Because I have no experience or knowledge about EMDR, I may not be able to answer or provide anything on this ...
Here, you were responding to my comment: "But is this all an exercise in confirmation bias? So, I told the therapist that my estimate of pre-therapy was 7 because I wanted to give the impression that it was serious but I'm not a basket case. I told the therapist my post-therapy estimate was 5 because I wanted to conform an expectation that I could accomplish something and that the therapist was successful. But what if my 7 was only a 6 and my 5 was really a 6? Not an unrealistic measurement error under the circumstances."

I think your remarks are orthogonal (sorry, you will have to use a bilingual dictionary; 99.999% of native English readers won't recognize the word orthogonal) to my comments about confirmation bias.

So, what is the issue at stake here? How do we know a therapy is working? That it is moving us in the right direction? That it has substantially resolved the problem? How do we measure this? EMDR practitioners use a 0 - 10 scale representing "doesn't bother me at all" to "I can't stand it at all". The subject is asked to measure their somatic disturbance before and after the therapy session. Then, progress is measured in the number of units of movement, say from 7 to 5 (7 - 5 = 2 units of movement) and by comparing the number of units remaining until one reaches 0 or 1 (if one has now reached 5, there are only 4 units to go to reach the very tolerable level of 4 and 5 to reach 0).

All very nice and diligent. Yet, I don't fully embrace this technique. It's not like the object we wish to measure is amenable to the scale of a yard-stick (a meter stick in your culture). The subject is just guessing that his/her place on the scale is 7 or 5. Moreover, if the unit of error is 1, the change might be negligible.

I suspect that I and every other subject of therapy is apt to have biases in his/her own sense of self and biases toward appeasing (frustrating) the therapist. Trying to put somatic sensations on a scale may be hardly better than asking for an un-scaled response to a question such as "How bad does it feel now?" "Do you think you feel better about it after this therapy?"

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding comes in its eating in real-life. If the issue is rooted in a dog-bite then we should ask: "Have you crossed paths with a dog in the past few weeks? How was that for you? Did you sense a less adverse response?" Asking questions in the cocoon of the therapy room (or on one's own sofa) doesn't tell us much.

I appreciate your engagement in contemplating my proposed technique. Thanks
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
Are you meaning for "somatic" to be interchangeable with "feeling", "thought", or "emotion"?

Somatic response is physical response, and nowhere have I seen that it is a prerequisite to successful application of EMDR....
Certainly not! The word "somatic" is consistently used in such discussions to mean "physical response" to be distinguished as sharply as possible from "feeling" as might be characterized cognitively ('I'm feeling afraid') or as a "thought" or "emotion".

The idea I was striving to convey is that I have little somatic - physical - confirmation for my emotions, thoughts or feelings.

I would wish for some sort of dashboard indicator light to go off to convey to me that "i'm over the target" while contemplating a candidate memory/belief/cognition. Somatic response seems to be the preferred indicator; yet, I'll take what I can git. On occasion, I have felt a vague sort of resonance when hearing a word/phrase; whether that's somatic/emotion/thought/feeling doesn't matter to me. That it seems to be significant in some way and temporally related to contemplating a candidate memory/belief/cognition is the useful aspect.
 

joeylittle

Administrator
The idea I was striving to convey is that I have little somatic - physical - confirmation for my emotions, thoughts or feelings.
OK.

Well - you don't need a somatic response to know you're at a target thought...I'm not sure who told you that it was important. Yeah, I think that for some people, they can easily say that they feel their emotions in body parts - like, the way one's throat can tighten up when tense, or how anxiety can be felt in the gut....things like that.

But recognizing the target only requires that you are aware it's upsetting to you - and you can be aware of that without having a physical response. You also don't need a profound emotional response.

Over time, as one does the work, some people report that access to those feelings or physical responses might become easier...

I'd say that the absence of somatic response is not a reason to develop some alternate form of bilateral protocol.

Be that as it may, it's hard to dispute that the cornerstone of bilateral stimulation - traditionally by eye movement - is common.
Just as an FYI - there are studies that prove the effectiveness of bilateral stimulation, and studies that prove how bilateral stimulation is unnecessary and adds no distinct value, as an element of EMDR. In other words - that the "EM" part of the name is a non-essential element.

So.....you've got theories built on a lot of other theories. All, theoretical. (I think theories are fine, they're interesting - but if you want to be talking about how theory turns into practice, then you really need a much narrower line of inquiry, to start...plus sufficient foundational knowledge and training, which you may or may not have)

What problem are you trying to solve, for yourself? Since, that's ultimately the goal, right? To recover from something that is negatively affecting your life to the extent that it interferes with daily functioning....

What are you trying to solve, for you?
 

grit

MyPTSD Pro
@CarlT
Thank you for your detailed response. I think I have gotten it.
I think you are trying to demystifying the process for EMDR/EMI and try to understand how exactly it works and it may work for you or not. This is my understanding. I am in similar that I want to understand or demystify the process of talk therapy why and how it works so I understand it. I am afraid that might be where our similarity of curiosity end. Because I have no knowledge or understanding what happens in the room in EMDR/EMI I cannot comment. I am not interested in EMDR cause I do not have a particular symptom I need to focus on right now.

However, I could comment the process of recovery (albeit different road than yours) and hope my comments make sense.

As in any cuisine, the art is in the careful selection of ingredients which are complementary albeit somewhat contradictory. Sweet with sour, and so forth. My idea is not to choose mutually-exclusive belief statements; e.g., "I am bad" vs "I am NOT bad" or perhaps "I am good". Dissuading the mind to completely nullify a well-entrenched (negative) belief might be difficult; or, more difficult than alternatives such as dilution or integrating with complementary alternatives. "I am usually pretty good" is an example of dilution. "I am pretty good at some things" is a complementary belief statement.

I am getting confused in all the metaphors so I will try to dilute it for my own digestion and understanding.
I see you are trying or attempting to instigate a transformation of self or schemes or personality or at full integration - correct me if I am wrong.
Without getting lost in the method you are using, to me the way I see it is less splitting (bad vs good defensive thinking) and more like I am both bad and good depending on what the context is or what I am experiencing. I do not personally believe I am good or bad all the time across scenarios. However, I had the experience in the past where I viewed myself as bad and try to hold that on the side while I did good things not knowing the connection of the two. So maybe you are trying to create that connection of your bad traumatic parts with your normal everyday parts. And it seems what you are using (the methods) are asking you experience these schemes/feelings/moods etc somatically. Somatic feeling is a proof of emotion moving the body - so no longer abstract. However, how much of the move is anyone's guess? Some people are naturally more stoic than others.

I would wish for some sort of dashboard indicator light to go off to convey to me that "i'm over the target" while contemplating a candidate memory/belief/cognition. Somatic response seems to be the preferred indicator; yet, I'll take what I can git. On occasion, I have felt a vague sort of resonance when hearing a word/phrase; whether that's somatic/emotion/thought/feeling doesn't matter to me. That it seems to be significant in some way and temporally related to contemplating a candidate memory/belief/cognition is the useful aspect.

This need to be on the target is interesting to me and I wonder why this is important to you? Or is it important to you that the therapist approves you are on the target? if you feel something - subjectively speaking - do you need outside proof to acknowledge?

Also IMHO, traumatic experiences in today's experience in therapy or outside are often or could be over-determine. An abandonment feeling of 5yrs old with a mother/father is different when 10yrs old with a friend, and more different when with the first love at 16...but they are all scheme of abandonment…and all are valid. The only time, it may become unbearable would be if as an adult every time a relationship gets too close, one recalls the 5yrs old experience and relives it somatically, cognitively and is unable to look at the experience from bird's view...it is too entrenched in the personality or tightly held in the body. So if one is struggling with all intimate relationships in similar ways...then the therapy would focus what is underlying experience one is not acknowledging and work with many many scenarios until the client solves it for themselves. Therapists are not all know. They can only know what we tell them...the rest is well informed guess but always as question.

Ultimately, for me I have to learn how to separate my own subjective experience with that of the therapist's subjective experience and only if we match then we may agree on the objective situation. But what I feel somatically is for me to know and articulate not for her to determine it is right or wrong or on target or off target.

This is very complex discussion so I hope I make sense. We are very much in abstract thoughts now.
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
you don't need a somatic response to know you're at a target thought
Thank you for this remark. I agree, but to date (i.e., my very limited experience) is that a somatic confirmation seems to be sought.
I'd say that the absence of somatic response is not a reason to develop some alternate form of bilateral protocol.
May be so. I feel no reason to justify my exercise of creativity for my own amusement and sharing with those who might comment upon it. If it motivates you not at all that's fine with me.
there are studies that prove the effectiveness of bilateral stimulation, and studies that prove how bilateral stimulation is unnecessary and adds no distinct value, as an element of EMDR. In other words - that the "EM" part of the name is a non-essential element.
Not surprised to hear you say this; albeit I haven't myself seen non-confirming studies. This venue of scientific inquiry is difficult; we should expect contradicting study results. Maybe watching paint dry would be equally effective. Yet, if bilateral stimulation is easy, free or economical, and it interests (amuses) someone, I see no reason to avoid it until someone declares: "The science is now conclusive!!!"
sufficient foundational knowledge and training, which you may or may not have)
Don't have that. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What are you trying to solve, for you?
So, like a large minority of people, I have my mental problems. I needn't get into them in any depth here. At the root, I have good reason to believe that they are pre-verbal mild-to-moderate and persistent traumas. What we popularly characterize as cPTSD.

That background gives me a reasonable list of candidate events (suspected incidents) and negative belief statements which are apt to resonate with my current troublesome experiences.

Obviously, they are going to be different; nevertheless relate-able. E.g., I can imagine my mother scolding me as a young child. I can experience my wife scolding me today. I can connect the dots.

Suppose it's true (it need not be true) that it's useful to discover the earliest possible traumatic experience and work-forward from there. OK, so suppose i find that I'm upset by my wife scolding me today. I imagine that might trace-back to memories (however they might be stored) of mother scolding me. What are the belief statements that might have resulted from my imagined trauma? Those might be distinct in some ways from the belief statements that occur to me while my wife is scolding me today.

Given the suppositions of the previous paragraph, it seems reasonable to me to avoid searching for some somatic (or other mode) confirmation. I can logically construct a path from a reasonable original source event to current event and infer a pair of belief statements. Then, maybe my technique would be useful in integrating the incongruent beliefs.

The foregoing describes my situation with sufficient detail to understand the background to my inspiration. You might not be interested. You might be skeptical. That's fine with me. I'm happy with any feedback that helps me gain further insight into my proposal.
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
I see it is less splitting (bad vs good defensive thinking) and more like I am both bad and good depending on what the context is or what I am experiencing.
Yes, this is it. While one is splitting, one is aware only of the "bad" side of oneself (or someone else). If one could move away from a splitting way of experiencing the phenomena and move toward integrating the phenomena with other viewpoints or resources, then one may realize much relief.

In a splitting mode, it's not helpful to recognize that on one day one recognizes the "good" side of oneself and try to average this positive feeling with the negative feelings on different days when one is conscious only of the "bad" side.
This need to be on the target is interesting to me and I wonder why this is important to you? Or is it important to you that the therapist approves you are on the target? if you feel something - subjectively speaking - do you need outside proof to acknowledge?

This is a good question. I'll offer an example. Suppose I experience great anguish when my wife is scolding me. I am immediately aware of thoughts and experiences that speak to my immediate experience in the hear and now. Almost all of which will relate to my perceptions of my wife, hear and now. But are these experiences and my perceptions "the target"? Perhaps not necessarily.

Perhaps my experience in the here and now relate directly and profoundly to some early experience; likely lost in a fog of decades of intervening memories. If this is likely the case, I might be able to imagine a logical early or first event such as my mother scolding me as a small child or even a pre-verbal infant. If I can identify some confirming event (a somatic response or a cognitive recognition of resonance) that's fine. If not, I can proceed on a hunch about the early/original event; and, a hunch that they might be related to my current experiences.

This gets me off the train-of-thought that my experience in the here-and-now is driven by my perceptions about my wife and gets me to engage with my own source experience, sentiments, conclusions. My perceptions about my wife today are apt to be projections and convenient rationalizations. As such, they are unlikely to prove helpful.

I'm not especially bothered by any disagreement by my therapist. I am remarkably open-minded and willing to accept that others are apt to see things differently than I do and that they are at liberty to believe differently from me. I don't invalidate them (therapist or any other professional) and I am resistant (albeit not immune) to others invalidating remarks.
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
@CarlT have you suffered from trauma in your life? Is that why your here on this forum?
No doubt everyone has. I conclude that I have. Nothing singular or over-dramatic.

E.g., I had one bad bicycle accident. Might have had a concussion; took 10 stitches to repair my scalp. Certainly was traumatic. But not bad compared to that of a relative who had two severe head injuries that brought him to death's door.

My experience was one of growing up in a family emotional dynamic which was significantly less than ideal. My take is that it had little impact on my younger sibling and devastating impact on my older sibling. I was in the middle. I've done well in life; albeit not as well as I feel I might have done without the untreated damage of my mild yet continuous traumatic experience.

Wising to make the best of the rest of my life, I'm now pursuing EMDR / EMI therapy.
 

CarlT

Policy Enforcement
yes that's what I was thinking! Maybe the name @Gibson?? Who was banned. Possibly....
Nope; simply not the case. This is my first posting in this forum. First posting in any forum of any sort analogous to this one. It's exceedingly unlikely that you would have read any of my postings on unrelated forums.
 
Top