is "The Body Keeps the Score" misleading, or even flat out disproven? I think this is an extremely important topic. So many people's ideas about trauma rest on the writings of Peter Levine and Bessel van der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score author)—but what if they just don't hold up to scrutiny, and the "science" they reference doesn't exist or is misinterpretted? This substack article is provacative, but I like it because it's someone who might be coded "left" or "hippie" by a bunch of other beliefs.. Admittedly, I skimmed, and I got recommended it because i have my own views about the trauma mindset's shadows, but would be super curious people's thoughts.
here are some juicy tidbits:
much of this science is uncertain at best, and in some cases was discredited decades ago.
polyvagal theory, which van der Kolk heavily references, has been disproven. Paul Grossman, from Universitätsspital Basel in Switzerland, writes in this paper that the basic premises of polyvagal theory “have been shown to be either untenable or highly implausible based on the available scientific literature.”
I wish we talked more about the legions of people walking around who have trauma histories who have managed to lead healthy, happy lives. In my first few years as a therapist, I noticed that contrary to the trauma narratives we see reflected in pop culture, people who have traumatic experiences are often not irrevocably damaged by it, but instead use internal and external resources to overcome it. They form healthy relationships, have meaningful careers, and raise loving families. These trauma survivors are not unicorns.
and
Part two debunked Peter Levine’s claims that trauma is stored in your body and needs to be released.
"Levine makes claims that are not supported by research and makes promises he cannot keep. He has contributed to fears that everyone has the residue of trauma lurking in their bodies by broadening the definition of trauma until it applies to any stressful experience. By exaggerating the degree to which traumatic memories are repressed, Levine (along with van der Kolk) has promoted the widespread fear that hidden trauma is causing somatic symptoms, even for those who have no memories of unpleasant experiences.
is "The Body Keeps the Score" misleading, or even flat out disproven? I think this is an extremely important topic. So many people's ideas about trauma rest on the writings of Peter Levine and Bessel van der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score author)—but what if they just don't hold up to scrutiny, and the "science" they reference doesn't exist or is misinterpretted? This substack article is provacative, but I like it because it's someone who might be coded "left" or "hippie" by a bunch of other beliefs.. Admittedly, I skimmed, and I got recommended it because i have my own views about the trauma mindset's shadows, but would be super curious people's thoughts.
here are some juicy tidbits:
much of this science is uncertain at best, and in some cases was discredited decades ago.
polyvagal theory, which van der Kolk heavily references, has been disproven. Paul Grossman, from Universitätsspital Basel in Switzerland, writes in this paper that the basic premises of polyvagal theory “have been shown to be either untenable or highly implausible based on the available scientific literature.”
I wish we talked more about the legions of people walking around who have trauma histories who have managed to lead healthy, happy lives. In my first few years as a therapist, I noticed that contrary to the trauma narratives we see reflected in pop culture, people who have traumatic experiences are often not irrevocably damaged by it, but instead use internal and external resources to overcome it. They form healthy relationships, have meaningful careers, and raise loving families. These trauma survivors are not unicorns.
and
Part two debunked Peter Levine’s claims that trauma is stored in your body and needs to be released.
"Levine makes claims that are not supported by research and makes promises he cannot keep. He has contributed to fears that everyone has the residue of trauma lurking in their bodies by broadening the definition of trauma until it applies to any stressful experience. By exaggerating the degree to which traumatic memories are repressed, Levine (along with van der Kolk) has promoted the widespread fear that hidden trauma is causing somatic symptoms, even for those who have no memories of unpleasant experiences.
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".
The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts.
- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1
I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.
I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things.
more quotes in case you don't read the article:
neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages
the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).
The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009).
Please help me stay intellectually honest! I'm not a fan of generative AI in general, and LLM technology specifically. I think its capabilities are being drastically over-hyped. It's a perfect, sweaty example of a solution looking for a problem. I'm skeptical of many claims people are making wrt how it's helping them.
My experience is it's like having access to an idiot-savant intern. Awful at most tasks, but knows everything and can read incredibly quickly.
Publicly, I've taken on the mantle of a staunch critic of generative AI and a pro-human, pro-soul advocate.
And for the most part, I'm happy with that stance. I like it. It feels good to rail against something, and it feels good to contrast a thing that I hate against something I love. It throws the love into more relief.
Yet, I don't want to lose any babies in that bathwater, and I don't want to lose my intellectual honesty in the neurochemical rush of fighting for a cause. So I'd love to explore the best use cases of LLMs that you all are actually using, and actually finding beneficial, life improving, productivity increasing, all of that.
I'd love to hear your experience, and ideally, you'd to tell me how you're doing what you're doing with it in enough detail so that I can try it.
I'll start.
Absolutely most useful thing I've found for it so far, and it's not even close, is language learning.
I'm in a slow process of learning Japanese, and asking a chatbot to break down the grammar of a specific sentence is super useful. It's also great for generating content for flashcards. Say you have a set of characters, and you want some example words that use each particular character. It's so easy to generate stuff like that.
Outside of that, I use it in super basic ways (basically as google with one less step).
So please, give me your best use cases, things that you've not only been impressed by, in a "oh wow, that monkey can tap dance!" way, but that has actually improved the quality of your life.
"Mom Brain". I was aware before I got pregnant that the "Mom Brain" phenomenon (brain fog, forgetfulness, etc) often has its onset during pregnancy but it has been really fascinating to experience firsthand what this is like sensationally (?) and emotionally. The "Mom Brain" seems to be gradually more and more noticeable and apart from objectively catching myself in more goofy little mistakes I am also noticing the like funny ambiguous itchy feeling that translates into the verbal though "I feel like I'm forgetting something" is becoming more and more common for me. I am a pretty starkly type A person and I am surprised how confronted that part of my identity feels as I make trivial mistakes that feel "out of character" for me - this experience has been so rare for me that I feel really "caught" when it happens and I don't have a script, relationally with others or my self, for handling these brain farts 💨
silver lining: becoming a mother is obviously a huge transition that will entail the death and rebirth of many aspects of my identity - it can't hurt to be getting a taste of that process early on in the second trimester lol
"Mom Brain". I was aware before I got pregnant that the "Mom Brain" phenomenon (brain fog, forgetfulness, etc) often has its onset during pregnancy but it has been really fascinating to experience firsthand what this is like sensationally (?) and emotionally. The "Mom Brain" seems to be gradually more and more noticeable and apart from objectively catching myself in more goofy little mistakes I am also noticing the like funny ambiguous itchy feeling that translates into the verbal though "I feel like I'm forgetting something" is becoming more and more common for me. I am a pretty starkly type A person and I am surprised how confronted that part of my identity feels as I make trivial mistakes that feel "out of character" for me - this experience has been so rare for me that I feel really "caught" when it happens and I don't have a script, relationally with others or my self, for handling these brain farts 💨
silver lining: becoming a mother is obviously a huge transition that will entail the death and rebirth of many aspects of my identity - it can't hurt to be getting a taste of that process early on in the second trimester lol
Brain as a Prediction Machine. This is my first post on here since Dara invited me a few months ago. Feels like it might be a fun place to discuss consciousness and brains.
In my Cognition and Emotion class in grad school, we just watched this video. In it, Andy Clark discusses the Predictive Processing framework for consciousness. As I understand it, basically the hypothesis is that brains are prediction machines. They model the world the state of the environment moment-to-moment. They're constantly updating models of the world and using both outside data and internal models to construct perception. The main "stuff" of consciousness (qualia) are prediction errors--data that wasn't already predicted by the models.
What do ya'll think about this hypothesis?
Edit: Video I put in the URL doesn't seem to be showing up, so pasting it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Ghrd7NBtk
My therapist says... if you have a disorder (I’d call this an undesired response + occurring regularly), don’t apply any strategies, any self-regulating methods to meet the stimulus. Don’t try to lower the fear. Any safety strategies will likely keep it in place.
When you do any kind of method you tell your nervous system this is truly dangerous. You need to show your primitive brain that this isn’t dangerous: I don’t have to do anything.
…
This feels so right in me. What a relief actually!
It feels related to what Jordan said earlier, that naming safety creates feelings of unsafety, making us more aware of what could go wrong.
Similarly, naming trauma encourages people to feel into their traumas, leading to distress…creating the opposite of what is intended.
Showing up to a disorder with a strategy is like an invitation to experience more of it.
What do you guys think?