One has to be a bit careful with this though. E.g. someone experiencing or having experienced harassment may have a seemingly pathological obsession on the circumstances and people involved in the situation, but it may be completely proportional to the way that it affected them—it only seems pathological to people who didn’t encounter the same issues.
If it’s not serving them, it’s pathological by definition, right?
So obsessing about exactly those circumstances and types of people could be pathological if it’s done more than will protect them in the future, weighing in the emotional cost of all that obsessing.
Of course we can’t just stop patterns of thought as soon as we decide they’re pathological. But deciding it doesn’t serve me so I want to change it is a start.
Yes, it’s proportional to the way it affected them—but most of the effect is in the repetition of thoughts about the incident and fear of future similar experiences. Obsessing about unpleasant events is natural, but it often seems pretty harmful itself.
Trauma is a horrible thing. There’s a delicate balance between supporting someone’s right and tendency to obsess over their trauma while also supporting their ability to quit re-traumatizing themselves by simulating their traumatic event repeatedly.
If it’s not serving them, it’s pathological by definition, right?
This seems way too strong, otherwise any kind of belief or emotion that is not narrowly in pursuit of your goals is pathological.
I completely agree that it’s important to strike a balance between revisiting the incident and moving on.
but most of the effect is in the repetition of thoughts about the incident and fear of future similar experiences.
This seems partially wrong. The thoughts are usually consequences of the damage that is done, and they can be unhelpful in their own right, but they are not usually the problem. E.g. if you know that X is an abuser and people don’t believe you, I wouldn’t go so far as saying your mental dissonance about it is the problem.
One has to be a bit careful with this though. E.g. someone experiencing or having experienced harassment may have a seemingly pathological obsession on the circumstances and people involved in the situation, but it may be completely proportional to the way that it affected them—it only seems pathological to people who didn’t encounter the same issues.
If it’s not serving them, it’s pathological by definition, right?
So obsessing about exactly those circumstances and types of people could be pathological if it’s done more than will protect them in the future, weighing in the emotional cost of all that obsessing.
Of course we can’t just stop patterns of thought as soon as we decide they’re pathological. But deciding it doesn’t serve me so I want to change it is a start.
Yes, it’s proportional to the way it affected them—but most of the effect is in the repetition of thoughts about the incident and fear of future similar experiences. Obsessing about unpleasant events is natural, but it often seems pretty harmful itself.
Trauma is a horrible thing. There’s a delicate balance between supporting someone’s right and tendency to obsess over their trauma while also supporting their ability to quit re-traumatizing themselves by simulating their traumatic event repeatedly.
This seems way too strong, otherwise any kind of belief or emotion that is not narrowly in pursuit of your goals is pathological.
I completely agree that it’s important to strike a balance between revisiting the incident and moving on.
This seems partially wrong. The thoughts are usually consequences of the damage that is done, and they can be unhelpful in their own right, but they are not usually the problem. E.g. if you know that X is an abuser and people don’t believe you, I wouldn’t go so far as saying your mental dissonance about it is the problem.