NationStates Jolt Archive

A survey finds that people who bottle things up after a traumatic event cope better than those who talk about it. This comes as something of a surprise, given that we are led to believe these days that no matter what happens, see a counsellor and it will all be all right.

So, does this show that our grandparents generation is right when they say 'just get on with it'? Or do you think that talking about things really does help when you've got a problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7427532.stm

depends on the person? i sleep through problems.

well, I'm gonna sell of my blogspot shares now...

Dr Seery, whose work was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, said: "We should be telling people there is likely nothing wrong if they do not want to express their thoughts and feelings after experiencing a collective trauma.
I bolded the important part. Maybe talking about a traumatic event with people who went through it too just makes it worse?

I don't talk about it. I just live my life normally after a traumatic event.

I bolded the important part. Maybe talking about a traumatic event with people who went through it too just makes it worse?

I think that 'collective trauma' simply means a trauma that many people went through, rather than them talking about it together.

Perhaps this study is looking at the wrong thing - maybe those people who didn't feel any need to talk about their experience were less traumatised or in need of support in the first place than those who did? Saying that the people who needed support to cope didn't cope as well as the people who didn't need support is a bit circular.

He said: "Those people who wanted to express their feelings immediately after 9/11 may have been those who were most deeply affected by it, so it is not entirely unsurprising that they may still have symptoms two years later."
So I think causation goes the other way around, those who are deeply affected by a trauma are more likely to talk about it while those who cope better are more likely to bottle it up.

The study is obviously biased since the people who choose to keep their problems to themselves are probably less of a pussy than those who decided to tell anyone and everyone about it. Hell if you try to make one of those loudmouths shut up for 5 minutes their head might explode. It's another thing if people are randomly assigned the method in which they are to use.

Jokes aside, there actually have been other studies that suggest talking about it over and over without resolution does nothing more than repeating and renewing the event. It really doesn't do much in meeting the person's "need for safety" as in this particular case. If you end up talking to people who is just as scare as you, you actually run the risk of polarizing those feelings more and more.

Also I just want to point out that survey does not show causation, only correlation. That and consider that it's an online survey you have to consider the legitimacy of the data in general.

As others have said, there's an issue of correlation/causation here--those who initially suffer more trauma might feel more compelled to talk about it.

Hmm, I'd also venture to guess that some people make a traumatic event part of their make up and therefore are compelled to talk about it more because it helps define them and they therefore have more impetus to remain 'traumatised'.

I'll grant that people feel different levels of trauma given the individual so, as usual, I'd say the waters are muddy on this issue.

How do they measure the soundness of someone's psychological state. Obviously the Psychologist has to talk to the person... and if the bottler doesn't talk about their feelings much then maybe they do appear to be a in a more sound condition...

My armchair psyhchologist is telling me that what's on the outside is almost never a true reflection of what's on the inside.

A survey finds that people who bottle things up after a traumatic event ...
The traumatic event in question is an important variable. 9/11's outcry had a number of tremendously damaging consequences. People who did not speak out about it can justifiably acknowledge in hindsight that grinning and bearing it would have been the better option all-round.

The poll says it all.

I find that there's nothing that can't be solved by building a robot suit to destroy the Taliban

A valid, but unsound argument sirrah! You know very well that it is not possible to build a robot suit to destroy the Taliban for they are they invincible dregs of society who single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union. Or so they claim.

...b-but the Russians didn't have advanced robot suits.

The poll says it all.

I find that there's nothing that can't be solved by building a robot suit to destroy the TalibanA valid, but unsound argument sirrah! You know very well that it is not possible to build a robot suit to destroy the Taliban for they are they invincible dregs of society who single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union. Or so they claim.

A valid, but unsound argument sirrah! You know very well that it is not possible to build a robot suit to destroy the Taliban for they are they invincible dregs of society who single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union. Or so they claim.

Nuh-uh. I saw a movie trailer that said that the Towleybans didn't stop the Beast on their own! Tom Hanks and Truman Capote helped!

...b-but the Russians didn't have advanced robot suits.They most certainly did, you fool! Stalin was the original Iron Man! He was crushing his opponents with iron fists long before that yank, Stark, tried to copy him.

They most certainly did, you fool! Stalin was the original Iron Man! He was crushing his opponents with iron fists long before that yank, Stark, tried to copy him.

God bless the Crimson Dynamo.

This suit and these repulsor blasters and the pneumatic colosto-unit are the property of the people!

A survey finds that people who bottle things up after a traumatic event cope better than those who talk about it. This comes as something of a surprise, given that we are led to believe these days that no matter what happens, see a counsellor and it will all be all right.

So, does this show that our grandparents generation is right when they say 'just get on with it'? Or do you think that talking about things really does help when you've got a problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7427532.stm

I think the point of counserling is to help you find mechanisms to help you cope for yourself. Sometimes a problem shared is still a problem, but now more people are suffeing.

The study is interesting but has significant numbers of flaws. Firstly by using a public traumatic event without direct personal impact (i.e. none of the participants lost friends/relatives in the towers) you introduce the variable that people may have been differently impacted by the events. As others have mentioned, it could be considered that how much individuals talked about the events may have reflected how badly it impacted on them. Also it does not consider who they talked to, talking about it with friends/family may just increase rumination (going over and over an issue without finding solutions) and will have very different effects to exploring issues within a therapy situation.

This said, I believe there is evidence within the literature looking at emotional resilience that those with a "get on with it" mindset can and will cope better with a lot of traumatic experiences. However, this does not mean they don't deal with issues, just do so in different ways. Bottling things in side and refusing to deal with the issues however does cause issues and it is important to differentiate between those who are dealing with the issue without overtly talking about it to those who just aren't dealing with it at all.

They most certainly did, you fool! Stalin was the original Iron Man! He was crushing his opponents with iron fists long before that yank, Stark, tried to copy him.

God bless the Crimson Dynamo.

This suit and these repulsor blasters and the pneumatic colosto-unit are the property of the people!

Seems my history teachers told me nothing but lies.

:mad:

God bless the Crimson Dynamo.

This suit and these repulsor blasters and the pneumatic colosto-unit are the property of the people!Curses, I am undone... and I'd heard of the Crimson Dynamo before. I guess that beats my reference to Stalin as the Man of Steel. My brains fails me.

Curses, I am undone... and I'd heard of the Crimson Dynamo before. I guess that beats my reference to Stalin as the Man of Steel. My brains fails me.To be fair, Crimson Dynamo and Titanium Man were Russian attempts to counter Iron Man, whereas Stalin was around before Tony Stark.

I certainly remember thinking when Princess Di died that the world would be a better place if everybody just stfu about it.

I certainly remember thinking when Princess Di died that the world would be a better place if everybody just stfu about it.

QFT

And I find it interesting that no-one has voted for the second option, despite this place being the kind that people do talk about problems occasionally. I guess Wilgrove hasn't read this thread yet.

Curses, I am undone... and I'd heard of the Crimson Dynamo before. I guess that beats my reference to Stalin as the Man of Steel. My brains fails me.

No, you and Laerod got me on this one...Stalin did come first, which is why the first powered exo-skeletal armor suit has one arm slightly shorter than the other.

Seems my history teachers told me nothing but lies.

:mad:There's so much more to history if you go beyond teaching only Earth 1218 history...

No, you and Laerod got me on this one...Stalin did come first, which is why the first powered exo-skeletal armor suit has one arm slightly shorter than the other.Sweet! I think I was gutted that I incorrectly remembered Stalin meaning "man of iron".

Now this man must go get his own iron. I'm making beef burgers from scratch. Yummeh!

QFT

And I find it interesting that no-one has voted for the second option

Well, I usually keep problems to myself, if not, I tell people I feel I can trust. The poll only has the two extremes, no wonder no one voted for the second.

I can totally understand that. Talking about the problem will just keep it on your mind. If someone is unable to leash their negative thinking/feelings on their own, then yeah some type of therapy would be a good thing. But it will depend on what is being talked about. Reliving the negative event all the damn time or listening to someone else reliving it sure isn't going to help anything. Turn that negative energy to positive in your life. Focus on solutions, ways to cope .. make peace with whatever it was - understand it's done and out of your hands (possibly was never in your hands -- depending on what happened) .. let it go, look ahead and move on.

IMO

Hmm, I'd also venture to guess that some people make a traumatic event part of their make up and therefore are compelled to talk about it more because it helps define them and they therefore have more impetus to remain 'traumatised'.

I'll grant that people feel different levels of trauma given the individual so, as usual, I'd say the waters are muddy on this issue.

That makes sense. Also, an uncomfortable fact I've found is that if I don't talk about something that bothers me, I tend to forget about it. It seems like my emotions should be this fleeting, but I guess they are.

A survey finds that people who bottle things up after a traumatic event cope better than those who talk about it. This comes as something of a surprise, given that we are led to believe these days that no matter what happens, see a counsellor and it will all be all right.

So, does this show that our grandparents generation is right when they say 'just get on with it'? Or do you think that talking about things really does help when you've got a problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7427532.stm

I think you have to take it in context. My family, as a whole, tends not to discuss traumatic events with outsiders, especially those who are, supposedly, trained to listen. On the other hand, we discuss things with each other.

For instance, my daughter was a stretcher bearer on a Navy ship in a situation where six people were killed in a grisly fashion (and, in one case, not instantly). One person was a newlywed, one was a young mother, one was a new father, one was a friend of my daughter's, the other two she didn't know. The situation was not combat or training related, but was caused by a stupid order. The Navy provided counselors to help the kids whose training required them to respond to the accident (most of these were indeed kids, under the age of 21) deal with the situation. My daughter did not talk to the counselors, feeling that if they couldn't fix the situation, they were useless.

When she got home on leave, she did talk to me. She also talked to her brother who was also in the Navy at the time, though stationed on a different ship. Her reasoning was that the Navy counselors had neither the time nor the interest in doing anything real and that her family needed to know, because the accident was reported in the news, but with no details (like who was involved). So yes, she did bottle it up for about six months, with no real effect on her work or her behavior (it did however add to her growing mistrust and distaste for commissioned officers who didn't come up through the ranks).

That was about 15 years ago. She has since left the Navy, gotten a Master's degree and gotten a commission in the Air Force. She still doesn't talk, outside the family, about traumatic experiences. Neither do I and neither does my son.

I don't talk about my problems to anyone really (though it will slip when drunk if only when other people are whining about tiny things) I just manage to stay rational rather well I guess and continue

what I'd say is that people handle problems differently and the idea that some handle situations better is an example of this (blah blah blah people have different psychological needs and we don't really know it till we break)

The Military (yes, the capitalization is intentional) is its own special breed of dysfunctional family.

I'd have a mistrust of "90-day-wonders" and above, too, if they didn't know how the ranks below kept their "shiny machine" functioning at "top efficiency" DESPITE their "Command Presence", not because of it.

A salute to you Navy folks who drove me around in your cool boats so I could go kill people and break things. Y'all make good booze, too. Thanks for that.

GP