We are often coaching over-sensitivity here and that's not good. There are studies that show things like "grief counselors" actually make things worse for people over time because they cause people to focus more on issues instead of defocusing which is what's needed for trauma etc. Teaching people to keep nursing their wounds is debilitating. Earlier versions of RYL had their issues but they didn't go out of their way to keep people perpetually sensitive. I used to see more people do a lot better other RYL's tbh
On the subject of grief counsellors, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Even with just general counsellors as soon as they know of a specific traumatic event they focus on that as the root of all problems, when at least in my case, it is not.
On the subject of grief counsellors, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Even with just general counsellors as soon as they know of a specific traumatic event they focus on that as the root of all problems, when at least in my case, it is not.
/pointless post.
No that's not pointless. What makes a trauma a trauma is a shock that suspends a person's critical reasoning factors so that impressions get passed the minds defenses and take root in the subconscious - where they drive the intellect and cause the mind to fixate to the artificial trauma identity.
The way back is to un-fixate to the things driving the mind (and body when conditioned reflex response comes into play). A lot of counselors cause people with trauma issues to focus on things in exactly the wrong way and drive a person mind deeper into the psychic funk. Constantly addressing people as perpetually wounded often keeps them that way
Last edited by Isoverity : 26-07-2010 at 06:26 PM.
I have to say I disagree completely on the whole trauma processing thing. From my own experience, undealt with at the time abuse can cause a lot of mess.
But that isn't what this thread is about.
Any abuse is horrendous, a violation.
I would hate to see abuse normalised.
Haha, this is OT but I find it interesting.
I think there's a vast difference between ignoring a problem and listening to it without focusing completely on it. From what I've read, trauma should be taken as part of wider therapy, rather than as a root cause or focus of therapy in itself...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
A lot of counselors cause people with trauma issues to focus on things in exactly the wrong way and drive a person mind deeper into the psychic funk. Constantly addressing people as perpetually wounded often keeps them that way
Yus (and I like the use of psychic funk)!
Last edited by Dreaming. : 26-07-2010 at 07:23 PM.
I have to say I disagree completely on the whole trauma processing thing. From my own experience, undealt with at the time abuse can cause a lot of mess.
But that isn't what this thread is about.
Any abuse is horrendous, a violation.
I would hate to see abuse normalised.
Of course undealt with trauma can cause a lot of mess. I'm just saying (as do studies of Australian police and firemen) that they can be handled in ways that make them worse.
What makes abuse more harmful for some than others is the way they react to it. Two people can go through exactly the same thing and one will be traumatized and another won't be.
.. and that doesn't make them a bad person. It may mean that they have an innate sensitivity to pain. Hell, like me, they may have even suffered birth trauma, where they had no CHOICE at all how to react!
Bottom line, abuse is an affront to the dignity of the human psyche - body, soul, and mind, and it is healthy to feel hurt by it. It shows we still care about ourselves, no matter what was done to us. It's one of the stages of grief, I believe. How we deal with that hurt... varies. And that's ok. Labels on a forum I don't think will make any difference to that response, personally.
My mind is probably on a different track, as the labels as denoting things to avoid isn't my priority - but rather to respect the damage that abuse and consequent self abuse can cause, so that we can get support to help recover from it.
People's comments and votes are very useful... I've noticed that no one's commented on the idea of using "Contains" instead of "triggering". Does anyone agree/disagree with this? (and if no, why?)
Edit: Just looked at the poll results, there are some people saying they don't like it... might you be able to explain why? All feedback is useful for the CT to keep improving RYL!
I prefer 'contains' because that's what the threads are. I know what my thread contains, but I don't know if it triggers. And really if you are in such a place that reading about self-harm 'triggers' you then you shouldn't really be reading a self-harm forum...
erm... *deleted as think I was being a little confrontasional...*
but I do agree with:
Quote:
Bottom line, abuse is an affront to the dignity of the human psyche - body, soul, and mind, and it is healthy to feel hurt by it. It shows we still care about ourselves, no matter what was done to us. It's one of the stages of grief, I believe. How we deal with that hurt... varies.
Last edited by shadow-light : 26-07-2010 at 08:44 PM.
Reason: deleting
Garden variety abuse and SA are different in kind and in degree. I can see where some people would want to avoid SA a lot more than non SA abuse. I'm sure some people might not like reading about abuse either but I see that more as a part of their problem and something to be overcome at some point - rather than bubble wrapping the whole forum. Building avoidance into the main structure of the forum might be nice for a few but doesn't really serve to do much good in larger scheme of things. A lot of people never complained about all the different types of tags until they started to proliferate.
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
RE Contain vs Trigger: I don't care either way. Both inform you what's in the thread.
The following content has been hidden - Reason : Reason for questions - may trigger
I have severe problems with abusing medications/OD and also quite strong suicidal ideas and thoughts.
i worry that if by the looks of the original post the trigger label for OD is being removed from Serious Discussion does this mean all posts of this nature should now be in Substance Abuse not Serious Discussion?
Whilst i agree that abuse of meds absolutely definitely should come under Substance Abuse sadly i have found the support in that Forum to be a lot less at times which leads me to feel forced to use SD more due to the level of suicide risk i feel/am at with it and not always getting enough support through SD so i would be concerned if that is the case unless others are going to be encouraged to read and reply in the Substance Abuse Forum more.
Or some people with severe problems i guess may find they miss out on desperately needed support at time here sadly!
Just my thoughts.Its if about really not just the trigger labels changing but are we trying to change where people put their posts too?
Or is that these trigger labels are being removed from SD because people should just know that kind of content will be there?
ive probably got a bit muddled here and sorry if this is a bit hard to understand - i know what im trying to say honest!
Thanks to the Community Team!Great job as always and i think its great your asking opinions too.
xx xx
PS Thanks for letting us know how to do a hide box - always wondered how to do this and now i know!i will try to do one now and to use this a bit more from now on.i like the idea! - Sorry im a bit late in the thread and off topic lol!
Also for my two pennys worth i prefer the word 'contains' as well. Think its a really good idea.
Last edited by Sleepless123 : 26-07-2010 at 11:22 PM.
Reason: To add a hide box - a new skill after over 2 years here! im a bit slow lol!!
i do not always manage to be around but i wish you all the very best - love and luck to you all!
I have nothing useful to add in terms of criticism; I think this list is all right. I just wanted to say that I really prefer the idea of a "contains" label rather than the "triggering" label. Now, if and when I post, I won't feel quite so...worried? that I've labeled something incorrectly, because a "contains" label feels more like a personal assessment and less like a gamble with other people's perceptions.
I prefer the idea of "contains" rather than "triggers". I don't like the word triggers that much, and I don't know quite how to work out how other people will react to what's in my post. I mean, I find things "triggering" because they happened to me, but I don't think other people would get "triggered" by it, necessarily.
I think contains is better because it does contain it, other people can make up their minds about it. I agree with Pierrot, "contains" sounds more like a personal assessment.
You are a wonderful creation.
You know more than you think you know, just as you know less than you want to know.
I also prefer "contains"
I pretty much agree with the list except perhaps the ED board should have a "suicide" label too? Because I have seen suicide mentioned on the ED board before, just a thought.
xx
i worry that if by the looks of the original post the trigger label for OD is being removed from Serious Discussion does this mean all posts of this nature should now be in Substance Abuse not Serious Discussion?
That's at your discretion. As I see it - if you feel that you OD because you're wanting to self-harm, it would fit in SI disc. If you're OD'ing because you want to attempt to kill yourself, maybe serious would be better. If you OD as an addiction to the medicine, maybe Substance Abuse would be best. I think I just feel that OD isn't in itself a label, but more that it fits into one of the above labels, if that makes sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepless123
Its if about really not just the trigger labels changing but are we trying to change where people put their posts too?
I think it's a bit of both. It wasn't intentionally an effort to make people think about where they put their posts - more to try and get people to take a little more responsibility, possibly?, but with the primary focus being on labels that people have been unhappy with for a while :)
Its because the 'substance abuse' one is too vague, because substance can be different things. So as someone recovering from a drug problem I can read threads about alcohol/meds but not illicit drugs....but with just a substance abuse label you cant tell.
I understand that we dont have different methods of self harm but I think there is a difference between SI and SA thats quite big.
I do agree with this, it also might help people to get better support if they're able to label it with "contains alcohol" then people who understand that can see easily what it contains and help out, and, people who are triggered by that particular substance use can avoid it.
As for eating disorders, there's frequently a whole mix of behaviours going on that can be described in one post - so while I understand where you're coming from Claire, it would not be viable to parallel it to the eating disorder forum, where the posts in substance abuse are more specific, and the posts in eating disorders can cover a range of behaviours - and usually do.
Yes, I know, it's just that with so many different behaviours I find it similar. There are things that I personally would rather not read about, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So currently I am pretty much avoiding the forum. The level of support in there has also decreased recently, which is probably a whole other issue.
Maybe a push to have better thread titles would be an idea?
![[LittleMonster]'s Avatar](image.php?s=21a90f20ef0e3b651063f3dd6353dc06&u=13847&dateline=1376481098)
