Let’s Not Talk About It

As already pointed out by a quoted trauma expert, the participates of this research is not necessarily victims of 9/11. Some might just not have strong feelings about the event after 7 years had passed, not that they do not want to share.

With regard to the health condition / length of response correlation. We can argue that when one lets the negative memories stay in the system and be affected by it, one's health condition will not be high. The sharing or not sharing of such feelings therefore might not be the factor of the lower health condition, but the general negative mental deposition. However, we can also argue the other way around that when one's health condition is low, one tends to remember negative events more vividly and be affected by it for longer period of time. Which also does not support the conclusion drew by the author of the experiment either.

All in all, the experiment is not well designed to answer the questions at hand.

This study questions psychiatry and therapy. I've always believed that dwelling on conflicts and challenges only push them to the forefront similar to dwelling on positives. Think negative, draw negative. Think positive, draw positive. I'm not saying ignore core natural responses, but just don't center on them and make them a daily appetite. I was raped when I very young. I still can't remember it, but nor have I spent hours analyzing it. I have a healthy and joyful marriage, I exercise careful judgment in what I consider unsafe consitions, but I also know I have only a few hours out of my busy schedule for healthy relationship building with family and friends. That's what keeps me grounded. I haven't spent a dime on therapy, but I also know I have control in dealing with that if that need ever arises.

Be strong, people.

to skd500:
I know exactly how you feel. Complete with the threats and gag orders to shut up when I tried to talk about what was happening to me. Hang in there.

Maybe one of the important lessons, is to refrain from PRESSURING people to talk about a trauma, provided that they seem to be exhibiting no more than a normal reaction, then proceed to adjust in a normal way. On the one hand, a CLEAR message needs to be conveyed that there is NO shame, weakness, or embarrassment in seeking out counsellors to talk with if you do wish to talk about it. ...But, on the other hand, there should be NO dogma suggesting that there is necessarily something ominous every time some persons prefer to simply move forward with life. It doesn't necessarily mean that the latter are "cold" or troubled people. Each of us copes with things in our own ways.

When you are an alcoholic, even though you may not notice the changes, everyone else around you will. It may start with sudden changes in your behavior such as mood swings. Your judgment may be impaired and you can start to have problems with relationships, be it in your marriage or with your children.
--------------------------------------
litumatrix,
Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.
http://www.alcoholabusecenter.com

Selection bias. It's okay to talk about our feelings now, so the people who do better with expressing their feelings will do so; and the people who do better with just reflecting quietly alone will do that instead.

Selection bias -- did the researcher account for it???

This article does a disservice to the work of psychologists and other mental health professionals. The take home message, however, should be emphasized in the beginning of the article. People do respond differently to events. People do need to know what is normal to experience after a traumatic event, and who is most affected by those events. The issue of the survivors' relational proximity to the victims is an important point to make here. Questions such as, was the victim of a disaster their mother, neighbor, third cousin to the neighbor's daughter's teacher, or the ice cream driver can make a big difference on how one reacts. Triggers for those that may be of far relational proximity may have symptoms related to their own past trauma. Some may have developed better coping mechanisms and are RESILIENT overall. These are those to study as well. THOSE WHO SHOWED REMARKABLE RESILIENCE. Remember this is not a journal article. Please do not write titles like this if it is not an editorial. There are ramifications to those who read pop. articles like this and see mental health professionals as "quacks". That is the disservice this article makes.

I'd say this report studied the wrong things.

Seems plausible that chosing to not share one's feelings is just that: a choice, and may in and of itself be an appropriate coping mechanism.

What should have been studied is what happens when people feel compelled to share their feelings and thoughts if they don't want to, and what happens when people wish to share their feelings and thoughts but aren't able to.

Seems to me that what may be harmful is either pushing people up to tak when they don't want to - when they would prefer not to - AND not having appropriate persons available to listen when people feel that they need to talk

The latest push in health care is to define physical pain as whatever the patient says it is.

Emotional pain, it would seem, should fall under the same definition. So should the choice to discuss it. Or not.

Physicians and psychologists have a history of thinking more of themselves than they should, and thinking we are all the same, that one size fits all and that one pill cures all. This study is flawed in many ways, but I agree with the conclusion and with Ali. Some people have better coping mechanisms than others. Some people have spent a life time developing spiritual skills, whatever the source, and can handle trauma better than others. In the end, it's up to the parties involved to determine how much "talking" is necessary in order to overcome. Are there instances where a person will be covering up the truth? Probably yes. Does that mean, then, that all trauma victims should be forced onto the "couch" to relive the traumatic events? Not at all. Training, empathy and jugdement are what are needed. Not "forced confession".

Has anybody addresed the apparent, obvious flaw in the study that those who chose not to express their feelings reported less distress on inventories. What about the fact that those responders may be less likely to acknowledge and express their feelings in general, including on the subsequent tests?

My God, how long does it take these idiots in the press, who over dramatize everything, to come full circle

Does this mean that people might actually be allowed to cope with life, instead of forced into counseling sessions (where they're told they have a "conscience deficit" if they aren't sobbing through their turn during circle time)? While there are some who need counseling, there are others who already possess coping mechanisms, and feel no need to play the "sharing" game.

The fact that results were self-reported makes the results a bit harder to accept. What are the chances that someone who doesn't want to share his feelings is also more likely to pretend things are great when really, he's feeling less than great?

And what will counselors do for a living now?

Sometimes by expressing our feelings we bring up bad memories and are reminded of things best left forgotten.