Does trauma increase or decrease empathy for others?

[Red Memories]

This sounds reasonable, and I’m inclined to agree but everyone I know who has ( or claims to have) trauma issues has at least one therapist, a social worker and God-knows how many support groups.

Do you think it’s that while treatment is available, it is just not effective? Do they use too much of a “ standard-issue” one -size fits all” approach”? Or, do you think it’s more that the ones who really need help don’t ask and aren’t offered it? .

Oh boy I am opening that can of worms I prob should reconsider.

I think sometimes, in certain areas, you find this problem more than others. Idaho (the state I reside in) has one of the highest suicide rates of any state and after walking through a trip into Idaho mental health treatment I can see why. A majority of people working in the mental health offices are social workers, there are also few of them that actually really care and read negative signs that are going to lead to an outburst. I saw someone's signs, asked one of them to check up, they said she'd be fine. she punched a wall and broke her hand. FANTASTIC, I DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEGREE AND I WAS DOING A BETTER JOB. WOOT. My favorite session was when they asked us all our coping mechanisms, and considering every damn one of us was there for substance abuse, self harm, or a suicide attempt, I am sure we're the absolute BEST people to ask about GOOD COPING MECHANISMS. Maybe remove the word "good" and go "so to get started, how are you coping now, if at all?" Oh my god take a communication class. and you know the fact two girls started personally attacking the self harmers in a group therapy session and all that happened after was me and the other girl trying to make it stop got a pat on the back saying you were so open good job! as if you know, it was okay they did not try and explain it or shut it down more so people weren't being negatively insulted IN A FUCKING SUPPORT GROUP.

Outpatient was a little better since, you know, you choose your therapist. I do feel sometimes, particularly here, I was with two different therapists before my tenure was over for now. It did kind of feel like both used the same techniques, same words, although I consistently told them some of the anti-anxiety regimes they were giving me were not working that well, they continued to push them on me. I realize it is a retraining of the thoughts but when some of them give me more anxiety than reduce it, I think you should listen to your patient.

Now something since I've lived a bit more I wasn't aware of much before is different kinds of therapy existing. As in, I perhaps need a therapist with a different therapy theory than the ones I was using. Even then, I think a psychologist should try and be familiar with many of the theories so in different times and different patients they can utilize ideas.

I also would like to point out, at least here, and I know of an online friend in Minnesota who needs to see a therapist twice a week, there is very little coverage for mental health. And many of the mental health things in my state, at the time particularly, were support groups. And after experience A I am sure I ever wanted to step foot in a full on support group again.

Weirdest for me though, I found some of the people there to be better therapists to me than the actual therapists, who rarely took the time to actually sit and talk to us 1x1 like they were supposed to. I think Idaho is understaffed for the mental health crisis we have and it pays a huge price, involving lives that could be saved. Many of those girls had been there 2, 3, even 5 times. And people kept sending them back to abusive homes, without proper treatment. I was happy they sent the one girl to state finally, because her father emotionally abused her to the point she was bulimic.

Yea. It varies.

 

[Mole]

Alice Miller in "For Your Own Good" writes brilliantly about trauma and empathy, click on http://playpen.icomtek.csir.co.za/~..._7_March_2007/Resources/books/alicemiller.pdf

 

[Yuurei]

Oh boy I am opening that can of worms I prob should reconsider.

I think sometimes, in certain areas, you find this problem more than others. Idaho (the state I reside in) has one of the highest suicide rates of any state and after walking through a trip into Idaho mental health treatment I can see why. A majority of people working in the mental health offices are social workers, there are also few of them that actually really care and read negative signs that are going to lead to an outburst. I saw someone's signs, asked one of them to check up, they said she'd be fine. she punched a wall and broke her hand. FANTASTIC, I DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEGREE AND I WAS DOING A BETTER JOB. WOOT. My favorite session was when they asked us all our coping mechanisms, and considering every damn one of us was there for substance abuse, self harm, or a suicide attempt, I am sure we're the absolute BEST people to ask about GOOD COPING MECHANISMS. Maybe remove the word "good" and go "so to get started, how are you coping now, if at all?" Oh my god take a communication class. and you know the fact two girls started personally attacking the self harmers in a group therapy session and all that happened after was me and the other girl trying to make it stop got a pat on the back saying you were so open good job! as if you know, it was okay they did not try and explain it or shut it down more so people weren't being negatively insulted IN A FUCKING SUPPORT GROUP.

Outpatient was a little better since, you know, you choose your therapist. I do feel sometimes, particularly here, I was with two different therapists before my tenure was over for now. It did kind of feel like both used the same techniques, same words, although I consistently told them some of the anti-anxiety regimes they were giving me were not working that well, they continued to push them on me. I realize it is a retraining of the thoughts but when some of them give me more anxiety than reduce it, I think you should listen to your patient.

Now something since I've lived a bit more I wasn't aware of much before is different kinds of therapy existing. As in, I perhaps need a therapist with a different therapy theory than the ones I was using. Even then, I think a psychologist should try and be familiar with many of the theories so in different times and different patients they can utilize ideas.

I also would like to point out, at least here, and I know of an online friend in Minnesota who needs to see a therapist twice a week, there is very little coverage for mental health. And many of the mental health things in my state, at the time particularly, were support groups. And after experience A I am sure I ever wanted to step foot in a full on support group again.

Weirdest for me though, I found some of the people there to be better therapists to me than the actual therapists, who rarely took the time to actually sit and talk to us 1x1 like they were supposed to. I think Idaho is understaffed for the mental health crisis we have and it pays a huge price, involving lives that could be saved. Many of those girls had been there 2, 3, even 5 times. And people kept sending them back to abusive homes, without proper treatment. I was happy they sent the one girl to state finally, because her father emotionally abused her to the point she was bulimic.

Yea. It varies.

Ick.
I know something about social workers and support groups. I would absolutley not reccomend either.

 

[Cellmold]

I was going to write out something similar to ceecee's post^. I think it only increases empathy when the trauma is effectively emotionally processed. (And more often than not, trauma is not effectively emotionally processed). When it's not, it causes background preoccupation with the self - and when there's some kind of pain/suffering causing a preoccupation with the self, others become little more than extensions of our own reality (instead of being able to view others as others in their own right, taking responsibility for how our actions effect them).

Or something.

 

[Lark]

Ick.
I know something about social workers and support groups. I would absolutley not reccomend either.

I'll fight you to the death

- - - Updated - - -

This is a well thought out cartoon.

 

[Yuurei]

I'll fight you to the death

- - - Updated - - -[/COLOR.

That’s what they said. And I’m still around to type this.

 

[prplchknz]

Depends on the person

 

[ceecee]

Ick.
I know something about social workers and support groups. I would absolutley not reccomend either.

I would not recommend support groups either, based on my own experiences with them. Social workers, most I know are very dedicated people that lack much of the resource tools to do their job. But that is how things function in this country - underfund and underfund so that something barely works. Then voters will be more likely to support privatizing/for profit since anything is better than what currently exists.

 

[Lark]

That’s what they said. And I’m still around to type this.

I can understand your view of them then.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the person

Yeah, I do think there are a lot of variables at stake, constitutional and character factors no doubt play a big part.

 

[Lark]

I would not recommend support groups either, based on my own experiences with them. Social workers, most I know are very dedicated people that lack much of the resource tools to do their job. But that is how things function in this country - underfund and underfund so that something barely works. Then voters will be more likely to support privatizing/for profit since anything is better than what currently exists.

That's what's happening to the health service in this country, social services and other care services are all managed under the same umbrella as part of the one service administered by a series of Trusts. In the rest of the UK I think there may be divisions between the social services and care services, managed by local authorities, and the health service, managed by Trusts. The tactic is the same though.

I thought that US had a more pluralistic system, like adoption services, foster services, even some hospitals and medical services being provided by churches, I know the RCC used to own and manage some hospitals at least, even if they are largely secularised now. I'm not saying its any better, I know that a lot of conservatives here in the UK see it as a desirable alternative to system we have and imagine that it will materialise, somehow, I dont know how to be honest, if they simply privatise or simply stop delivering services at tax payer expense.

I've even spoken to some conservatives who've said that they think professions like social work are pointless anyway, either something that should be delivered by charities or which is a kind of revival of the poor law anyway, working with people in crisis being something akin to unpicking a large rope and then binding it up again to be unpicked the next day. That sort of thinking really bugs me but it does endure and is very strong among certain constituencies and they always vote.

 

[ceecee]

That's what's happening to the health service in this country, social services and other care services are all managed under the same umbrella as part of the one service administered by a series of Trusts. In the rest of the UK I think there may be divisions between the social services and care services, managed by local authorities, and the health service, managed by Trusts. The tactic is the same though.

I thought that US had a more pluralistic system, like adoption services, foster services, even some hospitals and medical services being provided by churches, I know the RCC used to own and manage some hospitals at least, even if they are largely secularised now. I'm not saying its any better, I know that a lot of conservatives here in the UK see it as a desirable alternative to system we have and imagine that it will materialise, somehow, I dont know how to be honest, if they simply privatise or simply stop delivering services at tax payer expense.

I've even spoken to some conservatives who've said that they think professions like social work are pointless anyway, either something that should be delivered by charities or which is a kind of revival of the poor law anyway, working with people in crisis being something akin to unpicking a large rope and then binding it up again to be unpicked the next day. That sort of thinking really bugs me but it does endure and is very strong among certain constituencies and they always vote.

That's another method of "removing taxpayer burden". In reality it removes oversight and regulation as well. I don't think the majority of people in the US stop to wonder why there are so many charities and why is there so much need. If they did, they would likely not find a gazillion excuses to skip voting. If Bill Gates can put 20 billion into a charity then he can pay more in taxes, I'm not sure why anyone has difficulty understanding something this simple. Perhaps politicians should frame in the way I did about defunding/privatizing.

In the US one of the largest health systems is Catholic Health Initiatives, it's in 20 states. Trinity Health is in Michigan and busy gobbling up other hospitals and health systems. These are non-profit but certainly not non-revenue and mergers almost always increase cost to patients. I don't want my health care to be decided by any religious guidelines so I stick to a research university backed health system. But people are so pushed by cost, health miniseries are getting popular, even with the non-religious. Hopefully some secular options will be available.

 

[Lark]

That's another method of "removing taxpayer burden". In reality it removes oversight and regulation as well. I don't think the majority of people in the US stop to wonder why there are so many charities and why is there so much need. If they did, they would likely not find a gazillion excuses to skip voting. If Bill Gates can put 20 billion into a charity then he can pay more in taxes, I'm not sure why anyone has difficulty understanding something this simple. Perhaps politicians should frame in the way I did about defunding/privatizing.

In the US one of the largest health systems is Catholic Health Initiatives, it's in 20 states. Trinity Health is in Michigan and busy gobbling up other hospitals and health systems. These are non-profit but certainly not non-revenue and mergers almost always increase cost to patients. I don't want my health care to be decided by any religious guidelines so I stick to a research university backed health system. But people are so pushed by cost, health miniseries are getting popular, even with the non-religious. Hopefully some secular options will be available.

I think the role of faith communities in ownership of hospitals or delivery of services is an interesting one, on the one hand I know where the tradition stems from, the very word hospital is derivative from the hospitaleers, a religious, military order which protected pilgrims to the holy land, but that said, I'm willing to bet that the services are provided by professionals now and not religious, who may not even have any role in the hierarchy of management or administration.

The idea that religious precepts, dogmas or natural law would trump medicine in any way is a strange one, highly contradictory I'd guess but I'm not sure the extent to which that this is an issue or not. There are secularist campaign groups who get paid to profile issues and if there arent any how to they make a living? Dont get me wrong I think there is cause sometimes but that its become a source of revenue, campaigning, is something that involves "moral hazard" in the economic sense.

In the UK its a difficult thing for conservatives to talk about, NHS privatisation, as it is something that, despite the often very well documented bad management or other issues, people do not want to see threatened in any way. The Brexit leave vote won a massive amount of votes by printing on buses what they promised to invest in the NHS post-brexit from funds they said they would not be sending to Brussels, however, within an hour of victory they did a U-Turn and said there would be no investment.

The thing about the defunding that always bothers me IS the removal of regulation and oversight, its yet another of the "so long as its private its not really a problem, at least not my problem" idea which just serves feckless politicians, this is part of what I dont like about what is understood by libertarianism in the US, its such a gift to rich and powerful people who want to be less and less accountable or responsible for anything.

The point about the proliferation of charities matched with the persistence of the problems is also a very, very good one too. When we discussed welfare pluralism in social policy at university I always thought of charities as being about something other than actual remedy to the problems they were set up supposedly to tackle, instead I always thought they were for volunteers, an avenue for anyone who had the time and freedom or compulsion to volunteer in some way. If anything at all I thought that welfare pluralism's value was in recognising how important informal services or care was, especially the unpaid work of women (sometimes even children or young carers), which is pretty much invisible to a lot of people. Not in bigging up money, charity or as an enabler for tax shirkers or social darwinists.

I dont know if secularist funders exist or if they could compete with other providers if they did decide to enter a marketplace as providers, its not as though secularists have been that good at organising the equivalent of churches or older religious institutions. I did once read a book written by an American on this topic precisely which repeatedly encouraged Americans to give up on the idea of a European style institutional welfare and social services as opposed to the residual model in the US and instead invest in the US alternative. I didnt like it because that model is precisely what a lot of organised big money individuals with their political cronies are trying hard to import into Europe. Its mainly an english speaking world problem at the moment I think but it could spread.

 

[ceecee]

I think the role of faith communities in ownership of hospitals or delivery of services is an interesting one, on the one hand I know where the tradition stems from, the very word hospital is derivative from the hospitaleers, a religious, military order which protected pilgrims to the holy land, but that said, I'm willing to bet that the services are provided by professionals now and not religious, who may not even have any role in the hierarchy of management or administration.

The idea that religious precepts, dogmas or natural law would trump medicine in any way is a strange one, highly contradictory I'd guess but I'm not sure the extent to which that this is an issue or not. There are secularist campaign groups who get paid to profile issues and if there arent any how to they make a living? Dont get me wrong I think there is cause sometimes but that its become a source of revenue, campaigning, is something that involves "moral hazard" in the economic sense.

In the UK its a difficult thing for conservatives to talk about, NHS privatisation, as it is something that, despite the often very well documented bad management or other issues, people do not want to see threatened in any way. The Brexit leave vote won a massive amount of votes by printing on buses what they promised to invest in the NHS post-brexit from funds they said they would not be sending to Brussels, however, within an hour of victory they did a U-Turn and said there would be no investment.

The thing about the defunding that always bothers me IS the removal of regulation and oversight, its yet another of the "so long as its private its not really a problem, at least not my problem" idea which just serves feckless politicians, this is part of what I dont like about what is understood by libertarianism in the US, its such a gift to rich and powerful people who want to be less and less accountable or responsible for anything.

The point about the proliferation of charities matched with the persistence of the problems is also a very, very good one too. When we discussed welfare pluralism in social policy at university I always thought of charities as being about something other than actual remedy to the problems they were set up supposedly to tackle, instead I always thought they were for volunteers, an avenue for anyone who had the time and freedom or compulsion to volunteer in some way. If anything at all I thought that welfare pluralism's value was in recognising how important informal services or care was, especially the unpaid work of women (sometimes even children or young carers), which is pretty much invisible to a lot of people. Not in bigging up money, charity or as an enabler for tax shirkers or social darwinists.

I dont know if secularist funders exist or if they could compete with other providers if they did decide to enter a marketplace as providers, its not as though secularists have been that good at organising the equivalent of churches or older religious institutions. I did once read a book written by an American on this topic precisely which repeatedly encouraged Americans to give up on the idea of a European style institutional welfare and social services as opposed to the residual model in the US and instead invest in the US alternative. I didnt like it because that model is precisely what a lot of organised big money individuals with their political cronies are trying hard to import into Europe. Its mainly an english speaking world problem at the moment I think but it could spread.

No kidding.

In the US all it takes is talking about something long enough, good or bad. Most people are so susceptible, it's very easy to get them behind any idea if you repeat it enough.

 

[Lark]

No kidding.

In the US all it takes is talking about something long enough, good or bad. Most people are so susceptible, it's very easy to get them behind any idea if you repeat it enough.

I'm seeing a lot of that on this forum at the moment.

Its used to be Mole I saw bringing it but its more than Mole these days.

Maybe the whole forum is a sort of Skinner box to see how this works.

 

[Maou]

I will change how it functions. I think trauma forces previously conscious behavior, into the subconscious. While it is still functioning, not having conscious awareness leads to believing it is gone, or not feeling anything. Much like an earthquake causing a river to go underground.

I have personally experienced this. My trauma forced me to suppress my empathy, but with certain events, I realized I cared a lot more than I felt. It was hella confusing, because I thought I didn't care, but the tears will come randomly and or I would just break down and not know why.

 

[laintpe]

On a personal level, it made me want to help people, but when they are right in front of me the best I can do is listen. I don't have the right words when they tell their stories or describe what they're dealing with. It's typically not enough. To counteract that I try to help in other ways— creating social media content for nonprofits that help trauma survivors (mental health emphasis), advocacy, and tabling events. Ultimately I think content creation that communicates the state of a person post-trauma are as close as I'll ever get to showing unfiltered empathy.

 

[Quick]

Trauma is like a catalyst for a lot of things. Sometimes people do really terrible things because they have been traumatized. Some people get lucky and live in a safe environment for most of their life after trauma and can learn to grow their empathy substantially. Some people just want to kill everyone after going through trauma.

 

[Obfuscate]

for me it was a bit of both... it made me harder and softer; sometimes in the same area... i would say it more reshuffled my capacity for empathy than increased or diminished it over all... i think that a lot of how you handle it has to do with who you were prior, how you processed what happened (during/after), and how you are treated following it... there are things that can happen to you that can either break or shape you... how that happens is sort of up to you... it is never too late to change your path and mindset, but what happened will always remain a part of you...

 

[Quick]

how that happens is sort of up to you...

This is really fucking complicated and needs to be unpacked, but I don't feel like doing it atm...

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Secular human service and charity work is extremely important. Faith-based work can show preference to clients who are part of their religious organization. My mother is in a nursing home run by one specific religion and we are always afraid of her getting kicked out if they need the bed for a baptized member. People also come in and try to convert her. I saw it one time when they tried to give her religious literature to read, and she has dementia! She lives in a world where her stuffed animals are alive and have personalities and relationships. They want her to agree with their fundamental doctrines? Anyway, faith-based charities almost always feel a need to convert people when they are at their most sick and vulnerable. It is a moral violation to do that. Secular charitable organizations are necessary for any hope for equal rights within vulnerable populations.