In Schacter’sSearching For Memory”(in chapter 3, “Time and Autobiography”), a major theme that stood outfor me initially was the presentation of the two theories regarding the nature of memory storage and retrieval.One being that all that we have experienced is permanently stored in our brain and it is a matter of the particular methods and circumstances of the retrieval.Another is that memories can become permanently lost or non-existent.While both theories seem to have validity, I find the first concept to be the most interesting. The quote:“…That all experienced events exist somewhere in the mind,pretty much in their original form, simply waiting for the right cue to illicit them…” (Schacter, pg.76) resonated as a direct example of this.This has shown me more how much of the recall of our memories is so heavily dependent on the circumstances in which are recalling a memory and not simply whether or not the memory was there to begin with.In addition to the aforementioned content, surrounding these ideas,I wonder how much of our ability to recall memories could also be due to emotional factors and how much is truly attributed to “cut-and-dry’scientific methods of psychology that affect the human experience of “forgetting” a memory, and in addition one’s ability to retrieve it.While this chapter certainly did not seem to imply that these are the only ways in which to deal with memory, it is interesting to think about how the fact that, for example, a memory was so painful that our mind “shut it down” for a while, or that it was incredibly positive, and therefore stood out more clearly.It is also interesting to contemplate how complex and complicated it must be when combining these more subjective factors with the studies and theories mentioned in the book.
Claire Rigney Remembering Trauma The main focus in these first four chapters, appeared primarily to be on types of trauma coming from an outside event or set of stimuli being internalized by someone, such as those causing PTSD. However, it would also be interesting to learn more about the effects in which trauma from psychiatric, and perhaps more intrinsically chemical illness, has on the brain and how they differ. This was brought to mind, not only when reading the section, “Does Traumatic Stress Damage the Brain?,” but also with the recurring subject of individuals with PTSD experiencing symptoms as a result of stimulus related to the traumatic event (sounds, sights etc.). What is interesting, though, in a case such as schizophrenia, is that there could be, within someone with this disorder, traumatic experiences which only take place within the person, and that the source is within, completely independent of any external cause. It seems more likely this population would only have memory to memory to rely on( if even that) and not external cues. Therefore, would they will be less likely to re-live the trauma? It isn’t necessarily that simple, but it would be interesting to learn more about how the differences between treating trauma in these two diagnostic categories differ, or if there really is a significant difference, aside from means of recovering these experiences. On the topic of disorders, and what characterizes them, the fact that it is completely normal for humans to experience pain and fear in many situations (which is mentioned in the first chapter) brings up the interesting question: when does a traumatic experience become a disorder? Obviously the DSM III answers this with its set of criteria for PTSD, however, as we read, the DSM III was not set in stone (hence the DSM-IV). In addition, there were disagreements as to the criteria one needed to meet to be diagnosed with a particular condition, or even what disorders should be included, such as “post-Vietnam syndrome.” This, to me, supports the fluidity of these disorders/labels and how that can become an issue when providing or receiving a therapeutic intervention.
Claire Rigney
ReplyDeleteRemembering Trauma
The main focus in these first four chapters, appeared primarily to be on types of trauma coming from an outside event or set of stimuli being internalized by someone, such as those causing PTSD. However, it would also be interesting to learn more about the effects in which trauma from psychiatric, and perhaps more intrinsically chemical illness, has on the brain and how they differ. This was brought to mind, not only when reading the section, “Does Traumatic Stress Damage the Brain?,” but also with the recurring subject of individuals with PTSD experiencing symptoms as a result of stimulus related to the traumatic event (sounds, sights etc.). What is interesting, though, in a case such as schizophrenia, is that there could be, within someone with this disorder, traumatic experiences which only take place within the person, and that the source is within, completely independent of any external cause. It seems more likely this population would only have memory to memory to rely on( if even that) and not external cues. Therefore, would they will be less likely to re-live the trauma? It isn’t necessarily that simple, but it would be interesting to learn more about how the differences between treating trauma in these two diagnostic categories differ, or if there really is a significant difference, aside from means of recovering these experiences.
On the topic of disorders, and what characterizes them, the fact that it is completely normal for humans to experience pain and fear in many situations (which is mentioned in the first chapter) brings up the interesting question: when does a traumatic experience become a disorder? Obviously the DSM III answers this with its set of criteria for PTSD, however, as we read, the DSM III was not set in stone (hence the DSM-IV). In addition, there were disagreements as to the criteria one needed to meet to be diagnosed with a particular condition, or even what disorders should be included, such as “post-Vietnam syndrome.” This, to me, supports the fluidity of these disorders/labels and how that can become an issue when providing or receiving a therapeutic intervention.