Questions a bout memory and attatchment to objects-pls answer ASAP:)

[klungo76]

1st question: if a human has faced a very traumatizing experience, and wish to not remember it further, can they subconciously forget it ever happened and remain in a state of "amnesia" about these events...

2nd question: if heard of this before-some people just can't throw out old things, even garbage in their house because they have a sentimental attatchment to it...what disorder is this called? my friend told me that he thinks he has it...

 

-Thanks

[Turtle]

1st question: if a human has faced a very traumatizing experience, and wish to not remember it further, can they subconciously forget it ever happened and remain in a state of "amnesia" about these events...

2nd question: if heard of this before-some people just can't throw out old things, even garbage in their house because they have a sentimental attatchment to it...what disorder is this called? my friend told me that he thinks he has it...

 

-Thanks

 

For #1, I can't remember the answer. :rolleyes: :shrug:

 

For #2, hoarding is the term. >> Compulsive hoarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

For #1, I can't remember the answer. :rolleyes: :shrug:

 

For #2, hoarding is the term. >> Compulsive hoarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I am hoarder but I don't remember why......

[modest]

1st question: if a human has faced a very traumatizing experience, and wish to not remember it further, can they subconciously forget it ever happened and remain in a state of "amnesia" about these events...

 

Yes. Repression is a common response to psychological trauma. Although I'm not an expert - my common sense experience with people tells me that the personality of someone repressing trauma is greatly affected by the trauma - and most naturally in a very bad way. So, really, I don't think there is any benefit to repression. Even if a person doesn't remember something it can still have a profound effect on their psyche. I don't think it's healthy - but like I said, I'm not an expert. So, I'll just point to some info:

 

Trauma and Memory

 

2nd question: if heard of this before-some people just can't throw out old things, even garbage in their house because they have a sentimental attatchment to it...what disorder is this called? my friend told me that he thinks he has it...

Compulsive collecting or hoarding is a kind of obsessive compulsive disorder.

[edit: this is the same link Turtle gave above]

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

The same traumatic event can affect two people differently. For example, a car accident could leave one person unable to drive while the other person shrugs it off, and gets back on the horse. What this suggests is the affect of trauma is less instinctive and more of a conscious affect. As an analogy, if you ate some bad food, you might forever avoid that food, but it will not shut off your instinct to eat all food. But trauma, for some, can have a wide ranging affect similar to one bad meal shutting off the will to eat. That is not natural but it created because of a conscious loop or subroutine.

 

If the brain was trying to help the ego get back to natural, it may need to shut off the memory so the ego does not force a type of subroutine by fixating on the trauma. To stop eating entirely, because the chili was too hot, is not natural. It might be better to help you forget since eating is sort of important to the body.

 

There was a study of the affects of extended trauma of the 911 twin towers. There were two groups, one that received counseling and another group who didn't wish to dwell on it. The result many years later was opposite than common wisdom, with the group allowed to lick their own wounds and forget healthier. The other group was taught to keep the loop active rather than let nature sort of erase it.

 

It is not conclusive if the healthier group were the type of people who get back on the horse. But there was an attempt to force them to swallow the social subroutine of extended trauma dwelling. But they were able to escape too much mothering and got better. It is possible too that other group needed more mothering. But the data also suggest these same people should tried to have escape with the other group.

[Thunderbird]

The same traumatic event can affect two people differently. For example, a car accident could leave one person unable to drive while the other person shrugs it off, and gets back on the horse. What this suggests is the affect of trauma is less instinctive and more of a conscious affect. As an analogy, if you ate some bad food, you might forever avoid that food, but it will not shut off your instinct to eat all food. But trauma, for some, can have a wide ranging affect similar to one bad meal shutting off the will to eat. That is not natural but it created because of a conscious loop or subroutine.

 

If the brain was trying to help the ego get back to natural, it may need to shut off the memory so the ego does not force a type of subroutine by fixating on the trauma. To stop eating entirely, because the chili was too hot, is not natural. It might be better to help you forget since eating is sort of important to the body.

 

There was a study of the affects of extended trauma of the 911 twin towers. There were two groups, one that received counseling and another group who didn't wish to dwell on it. The result many years later was opposite than common wisdom, with the group allowed to lick their own wounds and forget healthier. The other group was taught to keep the loop active rather than let nature sort of erase it.

 

It is not conclusive if the healthier group were the type of people who get back on the horse. But there was an attempt to force them to swallow the social subroutine of extended trauma dwelling. But they were able to escape too much mothering and got better. It is possible too that other group needed more mothering. But the data also suggest these same people should tried to have escape with the other group.

I can appreciate that some people shug off trauma while other's may need to seek professional help. Therapy is not intended as "mothering" its intent is to gain a certain perspective outside ones own. A traumatic event can become a destructive cyclic reference point effecting perception. The best way I have found to overcome these effects is to create new associative memories. For example if you have a fear of high buildings and low fling aircraft maybe visit the grand canyon , or attend and air show go bungee jumping. If you have a bad divorce that’s got you depressed go on a date.

[modest]

There was a study of the affects of extended trauma of the 911 twin towers. There were two groups, one that received counseling and another group who didn't wish to dwell on it. The result many years later was opposite than common wisdom, with the group allowed to lick their own wounds and forget healthier.

 

:shrug: NO

 

The more traumatized are more likely to seek help.

 

This is a classic case of ignoring the obvious variable in statistics. There are, for example, more churches in larger cities than in smaller cities (this is statistically true). Does this mean people in larger cities are more religious? No - it does not. It means there are more people in larger cities. Similarly your argument above ignores the very simple relationship that more traumatized people are more likely to seek help.

 

"Just get over it" is a fantastically stupid response to psychological trauma.

 

A traumatic event can become destructive cyclic reference point effecting perception. The best way I have found to overcome effects is to create new associative memories. For example if you have a fear of high buildings and low fling aircraft maybe visit the grand canyon , or attend and air show go bungee jumping. If you have a bad divorce that’s got you depressed go on a date.

 

This may well be true for a phobia, but I fail to see the usefulness in cases of trauma. Let's say there's a girl who had an abusive, alcoholic father. Most naturally she will grow up and seek destructive relationships - literally getting pleasure from abusive boyfriends. Something similar could be said for cases of sexual abuse. If your reasoning above were applied to cases of trauma like this then what does it say? That this is healthy? It is not. It is normal, but it is not healthy.

 

And the best way to curb such destructive behaviour is psychotherapy.

 

~modest

[klungo76]

thanks to everyone who answered my question:Pyou guys rock!

[Thunderbird]

:

 

 

 

This may well be true for a phobia, but I fail to see the usefulness in cases of trauma. Let's say there's a girl who had an abusive, alcoholic father. Most naturally she will grow up and seek destructive relationships - literally getting pleasure from abusive boyfriends. Something similar could be said for cases of sexual abuse. If your reasoning above were applied to cases of trauma like this then what does it say? That this is healthy? It is not. It is normal, but it is not healthy.

 

And the best way to curb such destructive behaviour is psychotherapy.

 

~modest :doh:

I do not think the reason a girl is stuck in abusive relationships is because she enjoys it.:hyper: The reason is this is what she has accepted as the norm for herself. She builds on this as a reality from memories from the past. One purpose of psychotherapy is to have the patient understand this is a circular trap they are caught in, that is not of their making and there exist other opportunities if they can break out of a way of thinking by self examination. The final step in the healing process is build new healthy associative memories by cultivating healthy relationships. Another way is to help others by helping yourself with sharing the healing process, group therapy.

[modest]

I do not think the reason a girl is stuck in abusive relationships is because she enjoys it.:hyper:

 

Neither do I. It is nevertheless true that children who suffer serious abuse at a young age will grow up finding it very difficult to get enjoyment from a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship. Is this idea foreign to you? They sabotage their relationship. They hurt themselves. They hurt their partners. They make chaos - intentionally. They cheat on their partner, etc. If you have no idea what I'm talking about I'll find a source explaining.

 

The reason is this is what she has accepted as the norm for herself. She builds on this as a reality from memories from the past.

 

Oh no. It is far, far more complicated than this.

 

One purpose of psychotherapy is to have the patient understand this is a circular trap they are caught in, that is not of their making and there exist other opportunities if they can break out of a way of thinking by self examination.

 

I agree. But, I think you might underestimate the difficulty. A person with such a history may understand very well the source of their dysfunction. Even though they understand well why their natural tendency is self destruction, it doesn't fix the deep rooted psychological tendency toward those things.

 

Let's say there's a girl (boys are perfectly good examples too, I don't mean to single out a gender), there's a girl who is sexually abused at age six. By age 15 she is a sexually promiscuous cocaine user who has twice attempted suicide. This would not be abnormal. According to you she acts this way because it's what she's "used to". No - it's far more complicated than that. And, simply pointing out the cause of her destructive behavior isn't going to fix it. It will take years and years of therapy even to cope. And even then she will still tend toward or "desire" that destructive behavior.

 

The final step in the healing process is build new healthy associative memories by cultivating healthy relationships. Another way is to help others by helping yourself with sharing the healing process, group therapy.

 

Agreed, but we need to say firmly that putting someone with a history of psychological trauma in a healthy relationship is not going to work without some serious psychotherapy first. That's my whole point. You can't usually fix the problem we're talking about (if it's serious enough) by putting it in the past and making new memories on top of it.

 

It takes therapy. You might agree with me and I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. I just think it needs said very clearly. To fix such a thing, it takes therapy and what HB said above is not helpful.

 

~modest

[modest]

Here we go. 26 healthy and happy children were kidnapped in Chowchilla California and buried alive. They freed themselves and escaped some hours later. They did not receive immediate psychotherapy and the results were devastating. Their personalities changed drastically after the incident. They started verbally and physically assaulting others and generally going down hill from there.

 

The effects of psychological trauma are immediately and often permanently devastating.

 

I can't find the full article describing this, but the google book source below has a lot of it. I saw a program on the discovery channel on this incident and I think it outlines what I was saying very well.

 

Coping With Life Crises: An ... - Google Book Search

 

~modest

[Thunderbird]

Here we go. 26 healthy and happy children were kidnapped in Chowchilla California and buried alive. They freed themselves and escaped some hours later. They did not receive immediate psychotherapy and the results were devastating. Their personalities changed drastically after the incident. They started verbally and physically assaulting others and generally going down hill from there.

 

The effects of psychological trauma are immediately and often permanently devastating.

 

I can't find the full article describing this, but the google book source below has a lot of it. I saw a program on the discovery channel on this incident and I think it outlines what I was saying very well.

 

Coping With Life Crises: An ... - Google Book Search

 

~modest

 

You will not find anyone that supports therapy more than I. As for as you're insistence that I am oversimplifying, give a break here. It was only a very abbreviated general statement from a laymen. I never eluded that is was a simple matter and of course depends on the individual. For instance if a person has preexisting psychosis in the family, along with abuse . This may only be treated with drugs and in patient care. On the other end of the spectrum a victim of abuse could be resilient enough to heal without professional help, depending on age and degree of abuse, and if they have a support system already in place. Strong family ties for instance not associated with the abuser.

[modest]

You will not find anyone that supports therapy more than I. As for as you're insistence that I am oversimplifying, give a break here. It was only a very abbreviated general statement from a laymen. I never eluded that is was a simple matter and of course depends on the individual. For instance if a person has preexisting psychosis in the family, along with abuse . This may only be treated with drugs and in patient care. On the other end of the spectrum a victim of abuse could be resilient enough to heal without professional help, depending on age and degree of abuse, and if they have a support system already in place. Strong family ties for instance not associated with the abuser.

 

Thunderbird, you are... as always (or at least mostly :() ... a peach :)

 

I also derive my opinion on this matter as a laymen. Quite honestly, I've found myself to be a bit of a 'fixer'. That is to say - I tend to look for those relationships where that's my role. While this might give me some kind of slanted insight into the workings of those needing fixed... overall - I'm sure it is in-and-of-itself not too healthy. :hyper:

 

In any case, I think we agree. :doh:

 

~modest :ebomb:

[CraigD]

1st question: if a human has faced a very traumatizing experience, and wish to not remember it further, can they subconciously forget it ever happened and remain in a state of "amnesia" about these events...

Human being are capable of very complicated behaviors. Because it’s difficult to conclusively determine if a person who reports no memory of an event is being truthful, it’s difficult to make rigorous scientific conclusion about human behavior and psychology.

 

For this and other reasons, medicine, and especially psychiatry and psychology, are usually considered arts, rather than sciences – not because science is inapplicable to them, but because it’s not fully adequate.

 

Although the precise mechanism of remembering and forgetting is not fully understood, some relevant theory and observation apply to traumatic experiences and memory. It’s known that neurochemicals associated with stress and fear, such as adrenalin, enhances the formation of strong, long-lasting memories. Although a useful correlation of which to be aware – one can, for example, enhance learning by intentionally experiencing stress, fear, or physical pain – it’s discouraging in that it suggests that once formed, memories of traumatic experiences are strong, detailed, and difficult to forget.

 

It suggests that, by reducing stress via relaxation and meditation techniques, or antagonizing the associated neurochemicals with drugs, it should be possible to make memories of traumatic events weaker and easier to forget if the techniques or drugs are used during or shortly after the traumatic events. While it’s conceivable that this knowledge of neurochemistry provides a technique for creating strong pleasant memories that might provide relief from strong unpleasant memories – a “happy place”, in the common vernacular – it doesn’t suggest a means of truly expunging unpleasant memories.

 

Some theory and research suggests that such techniques as electroconvulsive therapy (AKA electroshock treatment) or induced insulin shock may provide a means of “erasing memories”, but are controversial, and have a high potential to do harm, possibly severe, so are considered treatments of last resort. Some claims that therapeutic techniques such as RET and hypnosis can erase or obscure memories exists, but are to be best of my knowledge not supported by neuroscientific theory or well-controlled experimental data.

 

A couple of many sources: Traversing the Mystery of Memory; Memory Pill.

[enorbet2]

It is not a sign of strength to be hard. It is not a sign of wisdom to pump oneself up with an illusion of control, that nothing could ever take it from you, that where someone else had trouble you would just breeze through with a stiff upper lip dusting off your shoulder like Buckaroo Banzai. It can be a useful illusion for a time, but it is a house of cards. It is ludicrous to think we know how we would act in someone else's place especially under traumatic conditions. One has only to read "Alive" or reports of Post Traumatic Syndrome or any such recounting of real events to find that it is often the "chest pounders" that fold and the quieter ones that rise to the occassion. Iy's not simple. Trauma has a way of turning one's very strengths against you. One of the best examples I can think of is a biography by the oldest surviving Civil War widow who is over 100. She relates how "she and the girls" at the rest home would take bets on newly admitted men as to how long they would last before falling apart and shuffling off the mortal coil. The smug, self-assured executive types got the weakest odds because they were always the least able to adapt to a condition of reduced power and the first to waste away. The illusion of strength is exactly what can make you weak. Read Sun Tsu. Mothering indeed! There but for fortune....