this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
76 points (96.3% liked)
Casual Conversation
2084 readers
327 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Often yes, it's (partially) how repressed memories work. And yes, those are real, it's similar to why doctors always mention amnesiacs from accidents recovering memories little by little (usually takes a week, the mind is amazing). On the downside, it's the main reason why, when describing past events, I've noticed something I mention about my past might say one thing while another thing I've said elsewhere seems to have the potential to indirectly challenge that, because the pedantic aspects (not the memories themselves) shift.
"Repressed" memories aren't a thing. I would suggest that you read up on the body of work by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. On the other hand, people forget thing, and certain things--smells, sounds--can trigger those memories. But these aren't deeply traumatic memories that your unconscious mind is repressing to protect you, you're just forgetting things.
Dr. Loftus has also authored a number of papers about the formation of false memories, and how people can be led to believe that they remember things that are absolutely, 100% false. Almost all of the cases of "repressed" memories from the 70s-90s, particularly during the Satanic Panic, are actually false memories created by the person asking questions. Unfortunately, much like the nonsense idea of multiple personalities, it's one of those alluring concepts that simply won't die, even among clinicians, despite the dearth of supporting evidence.
Interestingly, every time you recall a memory, it's wiped out, and then has to be re-encoded. So recalling and rehearsing a memory makes it more likely that details will change and be lost. Even things that should be hugely significant--like where you were on 11 September 2001 (...for the people in their 30s and older...)--often get misremembered, and sometimes very strikingly.
I didn't mean it in the trauma sense if that's what you meant, just that people can have memories that are unusable some days and vivid the next, with a few causes possibly at play.
I suggest you read up on dissociative disorders. "Multiple personalities" is absolutely a thing, it just doesn't match the sensationalized portrayals found in popular media. These disorders (and non-pathological plurality as well) can feature "repressed memories" in the sense that members of a system may not have access to memories that are held by other members. In fact, the experience of "lost time" is a common indicator of plurality.
The fact that memories can be falsely implanted, and often were during a particular period of media-induced mass panic, is not proof that memories can't also be repressed.
::sigh::
Look at the group that's pushed for multiple personalities to be recognized; it's the ISSTD. This is the same group that also pushes ideas of alien abduction, ritual satanic abuse, and CIA mind control through their RAMCOA SIG. It's simply not credible.
I am plural myself and have been since at least as far back as my early teens. Many of the people I know are also plural, at least one of whom has full-blown DID. I speak of these things from direct experience. It has nothing to do with government psyops or alien experimentation, and it was the Evangelical Christians who abused me, not the mysterious black-robed Satanists they kept making up stories about.
No, you don't. You may think you do, but a belief in a thing does not make the thing real. Evangelicals believe in their god, and will claim they have proof and a personal relationship, and yet, their god still doesn't exist. You may have had a therapist that told you this, but your therapist was also wrong. The idea that personalities would "split" or fracture due to trauma goes against everything that we've learned about trauma responses.