Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 23:09:01
In reply to Re: Is there another part to that?, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:35:35
> It would seem that PTSD at a young age would not be sufficient in itself to account for dissociative phenomenon. Since not every child who was abused dissociates.
Indeed.
But is 'severe trauma' necessary???
According to the Post-Traumatic Model - yes. Thats why it is called the Post-Traumatic Model...
According to the Socio-Cognitive Model - no. It all depends on the reinforcement contingencies. Thats why they argue about aetiology.
> So offhand there are three variables. There are probably more. A varying degree of natural talent for dissociation. A varying degree of stress requiring defense mechanisms to be used (and a varying degree of stress tolerance). And a varying number of defense mechanisms available for use.I like that :-)
Very much.
> I think the current thinking puts too much emphasis on the second, and not enough on the first and third.I hadn't thought of the third one all by itself. Kind of lumped it into the first or second. But I like that as a seperate one...
>While probably there is a complex interplay between all three and a few more to boot. Leading to various degrees and presentations of dissociative disorders, and various causes for them.
Yeah. Three factors (best not allow for more unless / until we are forced to) and when they are weighted just so - then bingo. :-)
Though there isn't even a 'magic number'.
But maybe for those within this range - borderline
for those within that range - bingo
for those within the next range - severe etc etc.
And if one (or two) factors are weighted really high then the third one can still be within normal range yet a dissociative disorder would result in virtue of the other two...
:-)> I dunno. I'm waiting with interest for your theory. :)
It is a while off yet...
Mine is more a theory as to how we should conceive of alters. Are they selves? Are they fragments of selves? Are they merely role-plays? That is more what I am trying to answer.
Have put another bit up.
It is a theory of the mind.
In the next section I build that into a theory of the self.
Then in the following I try to look at how to adapt that to allow for / account for multiple selves.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/476517.html