I don’t think it’s a problem to just gently ask and then be open to the possibility of something coming up. That’s different from the kinds of leading questions that typically create false memories. Especially since Focusing/IFS/etc. style techniques seem to cause memories to come up spontaneously in any case, it’s just slightly nudging the process forward.
It also doesn’t necessarily matter whether the memories are true or not, as long as it helps the healing process along. We all have plenty of false or misleading memories in our heads anyway.
When leading techniques like Focusing or IFS you don’t normally tell the person you are leading things like “The part is only going to relax once you’ve witnessed the original memories which make him take on that extreme role”.
The sentence can be understood as a suggestion to seek for traumatic memories that might be the cause. It also contains a limiting belief in that it implies that the only way to deal with the issue is to go consciously through memories.
Writing communication has the problem that the space of possible interpretation from readers is often much larger then in 1-on-1 communication. There the risk of someone doing the wrong thing after reading the post and not just doing a lot of Focusing/IDC.
It also doesn’t necessarily matter whether the memories are true or not, as long as it helps the healing process along.
False memories can have negative consequences unrelated to the healing process. You might falsely remember something that causes you to think badly of someone, for example.
But even ignoring those, I feel like “I’m going to remember false things for instrumental gain” is the kind of thinking that gets people into this kind of mess.
Kaj can correct me if I’m misinterpreting them, but my understanding of:
It also doesn’t necessarily matter whether the memories are true or not, as long as it helps the healing process along. We all have plenty of false or misleading memories in our heads anyway.
Would be something like this: let’s say I’m trying to figure out why I’m scared of people, and a memory pops up of a kid in in elementary school sticking their tongue out at my and everyone laughing. It could be that no one was making fun of me, the kid was just playing around with their tongue (as 8 year olds do), and I later edited in the laughter of the other kids, and added more negative emotional valence to it.
I think Kaj is saying that it is useful to trace “Oh, I’ve got this thing in my head that has motivated me to act like ABC”. Whether or not my memory is an accurate representation of what happened, this memory has been affecting you, and you could do with examining it.
I wouldn’t interpret Kaj as saying “Go ahead and remember false things for instrumental gain. What could possibly go wrong with that!?”. Truth is obviously important, and allowing oneself to pretend “this looks instrumentally useful to believe, so I can ignore the fact that it’s clearly false” is definitely a recipe for disaster.
What Kaj is saying, I think, is that the possibility of being wrong is not justification for closing ones eyes and not looking. If we attempt to have any beliefs at all, we’re going to be wrong now and then, and the best way to deal with this is to keep this in mind, stay calibrated, and generally look at more rather than less.
It’s not that “recovering memories” is especially error prone, it’s that everything is error prone and people often fail to appreciate how unreliable memory can be because they don’t actually get how it works. If you try to mislead someone and convince them that a certain thing is happened, they might remember “oh, but I could have been mislead” where as if you do the exact same thing but instead you mislead them to think “you remember this happening”, then they now get this false stamp of certainty saying “but I remember it!”.
What Kaj is saying, I think, is that the possibility of being wrong is not justification for closing ones eyes and not looking. [...] It’s not that “recovering memories” is especially error prone, it’s that everything is error prone and people often fail to appreciate how unreliable memory can be because they don’t actually get how it works.
I don’t think it’s a problem to just gently ask and then be open to the possibility of something coming up. That’s different from the kinds of leading questions that typically create false memories. Especially since Focusing/IFS/etc. style techniques seem to cause memories to come up spontaneously in any case, it’s just slightly nudging the process forward.
It also doesn’t necessarily matter whether the memories are true or not, as long as it helps the healing process along. We all have plenty of false or misleading memories in our heads anyway.
When leading techniques like Focusing or IFS you don’t normally tell the person you are leading things like “The part is only going to relax once you’ve witnessed the original memories which make him take on that extreme role”.
The sentence can be understood as a suggestion to seek for traumatic memories that might be the cause. It also contains a limiting belief in that it implies that the only way to deal with the issue is to go consciously through memories.
Writing communication has the problem that the space of possible interpretation from readers is often much larger then in 1-on-1 communication. There the risk of someone doing the wrong thing after reading the post and not just doing a lot of Focusing/IDC.
Right, I agree that having an explicit intention to go looking for traumatic memories is likely to be counterproductive.
False memories can have negative consequences unrelated to the healing process. You might falsely remember something that causes you to think badly of someone, for example.
But even ignoring those, I feel like “I’m going to remember false things for instrumental gain” is the kind of thinking that gets people into this kind of mess.
Kaj can correct me if I’m misinterpreting them, but my understanding of:
Would be something like this: let’s say I’m trying to figure out why I’m scared of people, and a memory pops up of a kid in in elementary school sticking their tongue out at my and everyone laughing. It could be that no one was making fun of me, the kid was just playing around with their tongue (as 8 year olds do), and I later edited in the laughter of the other kids, and added more negative emotional valence to it.
I think Kaj is saying that it is useful to trace “Oh, I’ve got this thing in my head that has motivated me to act like ABC”. Whether or not my memory is an accurate representation of what happened, this memory has been affecting you, and you could do with examining it.
I wouldn’t interpret Kaj as saying “Go ahead and remember false things for instrumental gain. What could possibly go wrong with that!?”. Truth is obviously important, and allowing oneself to pretend “this looks instrumentally useful to believe, so I can ignore the fact that it’s clearly false” is definitely a recipe for disaster.
What Kaj is saying, I think, is that the possibility of being wrong is not justification for closing ones eyes and not looking. If we attempt to have any beliefs at all, we’re going to be wrong now and then, and the best way to deal with this is to keep this in mind, stay calibrated, and generally look at more rather than less.
It’s not that “recovering memories” is especially error prone, it’s that everything is error prone and people often fail to appreciate how unreliable memory can be because they don’t actually get how it works. If you try to mislead someone and convince them that a certain thing is happened, they might remember “oh, but I could have been mislead” where as if you do the exact same thing but instead you mislead them to think “you remember this happening”, then they now get this false stamp of certainty saying “but I remember it!”.
I endorse this summary.