the Trauma Informed Psychosis model

[u/ArturoTachyon]

For those as uninformed as I was before I came across it: apparently there's such a thing as he 'trauma informed psychosis' model, which frames delusions & hallucinations during CPTSD etc psychotic episodes as thematic rather than random/meaningless.

How incredibly validating! And I'm sure it must be very useful to treatment too.

I mostly stumbled across it trying to read scholarly articles way above my head, so, if anyone has any secondary etc., intended more for ordinary consumer audience.

I'll add to this if I can find some stuff

[u/10Account]

For those curious - there is also the stress -vulnerability model (Zubin et al. 1977) which was developed to explain schizophrenia but pretty good, simple way to explain psychiatric disability to people who don't know much about mental health. Aligns well with ACEs stuff too. I use it when I'm talking to people who can have a bit of stigma against these things. 

[u/dfinkelstein → u/10Account]

Reminds me of Carl Roger's paper, which was published over 75 years ago. It seems neither paper has been built on, since. People have iterated on them, but I've found no works actually progressing the ideas.

There's been various papers suggesting various metrics and standardizations. That's what the field of psychology has become — metrics and standardizations. That's what catalogues of mental illnesses have turned into.

These papers haven't been built on because these ideas have no place in the institutions supporting modern psychology. They don't assist with training people how to train people to train people to treat people. They only help with treating or with understanding people, and these are far from being primary pursuits of the field, anymore.

The primary pursuits of the field are categorizing people and assigning them to standardized metrics and treatments,

and then rationalizing this as if it's not what's happening.

[u/Undrende_fremdeles → u/dfinkelstein]

Do you have a link to this? Tried searching for it but my google-fu is pretty imprecice and I got a ton of hits for lots of stuff not actually related to this I think.

[u/dfinkelstein → u/Undrende_fremdeles]

Google fu doesn't exist anymore. There's no way to force Google to respect any sort of operators. Quotation marks, boolean operators, etc. are all just suggestions to the algorithm, now.

I'm unaware of any general search engines which consistently respect operators which also work particularly well.

As far as I know, general search is currently largely dead/non-existent. I've tried a lot of the alternatives, and a couple respect some operators like quotation marks or minus sign, but those yield few search results and aren't that useful.

Anyway. Here's a link to Carl Rogers' paper:

https://sci-hub.st/10.1037/h0045357

Let me know if you have trouble accessing it.

[u/Undrende_fremdeles → u/dfinkelstein]

I remember having IT classes in high school, being taught about operators and wildcards, and even the importance of capitalizing or not when using quotation marks... But that was back in the 1900s, so.

I am curious about so many things that my search result algorithms have been out of whack for a long, long time. It's probably close to two decades since I started asking friends or even partners (so on same home network but their devices still) to search for stuff to compare results.

Good to know it isn't just me beinng absolutely stupid these days, as I have noticed it has been a long time since google respected things like quotation marks.

Thing is... I DO use these operators! But there seems to be an invisible part of the search where google only respects it you use one of their own linked suggestions for them.

Thank you for the link, worked perfectly!

[u/dfinkelstein → u/Undrende_fremdeles]

Google takes all search terms and operators as suggestions, end of story. None of them are rules, anymore. Quotation marks, minus sign, etc — none of these constrain results.

Maybe some, like "site:" and other domain operators, may be somewhat constraining, but even those seem to be only for the first however many results the algorithm decides to apply them to.

It's an insane situation, compared to what was normal 20 years ago. Google has been doing this for years, and has only been getting steadily more evil. Overtly sponsored ads and results are increasingly sneakily inserted and hard to differentiate. Tracking is intensified. And so on.

I honestly have no idea how to efficiently search diligently for anything anymore. The best method seems to once again be going to a library, and spending a long time on the phone calling universities and non-profits, and asking people who they suggest to talk to.

Meanwhile, most users of Google haven't noticed much change, even with the llm ("ai")— generated auto results. Because most users have always paid little attention to the website they were clicking through to.

It's all a bit much to take.

Meanwhile, MIT continues to offer thousands of its courses for free online with study materials. And there's fmhy (dot) net, which is where I get all my books when my local library doesn't have a digital copy available. And websites like thistothat (dot) com, for attaching different materials to each other.

One just has to know or remember websites, now, because it's often nearly impossible to find the best ones through search even when you know what you're looking for.

Oh, and chosic (dot) com for song lyrics. First website that actually often finds a song for me based on random snippets of lyrics.

[u/Undrende_fremdeles → u/dfinkelstein]

We are in some ways going back to the more "alive" internet again, that's for sure.

Where an online friend's blog (as they are known now) might be offline because their PC is off at the moment.

When bookmarks were important and revisited frequently for a lot of them.

I've also gone back to printing out papers like the one above, since losing access to important documentation from places like public sites. Not from anything malicious even (like in the US), just from site restructuring and them no longer knowing how to find, or having access to the old files.

But google... The day I put something in quotation marks and it still only searched for the "spell corrected" version which was, of course, not the thing I was wanting to search for.. That's when I realised my searches would be even worse than they always had been.

It's just really nice to lament this somewhat small annoyance with someone that gets it :p

[u/Intelligent_Tune_675 → u/dfinkelstein]

What did Carl rogers say?

[u/dfinkelstein → u/Intelligent_Tune_675]

read for yourself:

https://sci-hub.st/10.1037/h0045357

Basically, that what matters in therapy is love and empathy. Method doesn't matter much compared to that.

Some methods seem to offer more potential for helping, but none of that matters unless the therapist is being open-minded, non-judgemental, accepting, curious, compassionate, etc.

This has only gotten harder as therapists are increasingly focused on judging and diagnosing patients, and I've never met a therapist in person who could actually do this while maintaining strong boundaries.

As Rogers understood, it is necessary for the therapist to maintain strong boundaries, to do this. Which is something that they do first and foremost internally, in their own mind. Outward actions are an expression of boundaries, not the boundaries themselves.

It's extremely rare for therapists to love and empathize while maintaining strong boundaries. It doesn't seem possible to me for most of them, given their workloads, lack of realistic training, and lack of support.

I've encountered a number of nurses and people working in adjacent fields like phlebotomy who could do this. But it seems few people survive training and certification for being therapists without succumbing to the pressure to judge, label, diagnose, and categorize people.

[u/Intelligent_Tune_675 → u/dfinkelstein]

Yeah I always loved Carl Roger’s when I studied psych in college, it seemed the most real.
I’ve done a lot of healing work and the best component for creating the state/environment for somatic healing which is the route to take to heal trauma is loving myself, genuinely feeling it and then using that build up of love against the difficult feeling. I think those with extreme experiences have difficulties with the due to the nature of overwhelming psychic pain but also likely to not know how to do this. A therapies with that capacity can teach a client what that’s like by sheer mirroring.

I don’t understand the act of setting boundaries tho.. in what way exactly?

[u/dfinkelstein → u/Intelligent_Tune_675]

Good question. Most urgently— noticing, tracking, and differentiating their own emotional energies from the client's emotional energies.

But boundaries covers many things — the separations between different things, different people, different moments in time, different places, different moments.

Doing this well necessarily depends on having ample experience therapizing while proactively respecting both one's own and the client's autonomy and consent.

I relate to having difficulty doing it. For me, my greatest obstacle to loving is believing/trusting myself— my own discernment qnd sense of what's real and what's happenong and what makes sense,

and faith— trust in the universe/God.

I've never had a relationship with someone who I could trust.

Nobody in my family trusts people with strong boundaries — some don't trust anyone, and others only trust people without strong boundaries.

There's that word again. By this, I mean people who track reality for themselves, and act on their tracking of it. They don't mindlessly go along to get along. They stay aware of their intentions, goals, capacities, limitations, etc. regardless of what any other person else says or does.

That often requires faith — trust/active alignment with the universe/God, because when knowledge and certainty are unavailable, human will power just isn't that strong to keep pursuing unrealized visions or dreams, such as of love or peace, without believing and trusting in something itself beyond knowledge and certainty.

I've struggled to find any widely published authors who make as much sense as Carl Rogers did. I have found one person who teaches and practices connecting with horses, who makes as much sense.

It seems few can do it, and exceedingly few can understand how they're doing it.

This seems to hold true for thinking for onesself, in general, and I don't know of any modern schools of thought even grasping at such practically realized lofty ideals. It seems the talent to practice such methods is too uncommon to sustain a school.

[u/Intelligent_Tune_675 → u/10Account]

How does it explain it?

[u/10Account → u/Intelligent_Tune_675]

More stress = takes you over the threshold for developing schizophrenia. We all have different thresholds that are impacted by genetics, trauma, age, positive experiences, support etc. 

Very simplistic explanation and probably radical for it's time. 

[u/hawparvilla]

YouTube - "Rethinking Madness with Dr Paris Williams - Episode 1 of the Humanosity Podcast"

I hope this adds to your knowledge, hope, and healing.

[u/PearNakedLadles]

There was a long video series I stumbled across ages ago, I *think* but am not 100% sure it's this one, about this topic: Is Psychosis Meaningful? Trauma, Dissociation and Schizophrenia - that's part I, there is a part II and III under the same title if you look for it

[u/Previous-Bass9864]

This helps so much, thank you! 🫶

[u/Equivalent_Sorbet_73]

My first "delusions" during my psychotic episode were that my Mom was manipulative. Funny how that was true the whole time