"Whenever this happens, my inbox fills with messages from clients asking the same questions:Is the book wrong? Am I wrong for finding it helpful? Is van der Kolk a villain? For people whose nervous systems already lean toward self-doubt and self-blame, these debates can be deeply destabilizing. There are a few truths: First: The Body Keeps the Score is not evil. Second: If the book helped you, you are not foolish or misguided."
"The real danger is not the critique itself, it's what we do with it. Too often, people assume that if a piece of science is imperfect, the whole theory must be discarded. If a metaphor is reductive, the entire framework must be fraudulent. If an author stumbles, all of their work must be tainted. This is not only overly simplistic, but all-or-nothing thinking also harms the very people we claim to protect."
Periodic critiques target popular trauma approaches for guru culture, pseudoscience, and overreach. Such critiques often trigger shame and self-doubt among people who found relief from those approaches. Three core points follow: the approach is not inherently evil; personal therapeutic benefit is valid; and critiques—some accurate, some exaggerated—do not mandate wholesale abandonment. Errors exist, including at least one incorrect citation claiming traumatized children have "50 times" the rate of asthma. The main risk is all-or-nothing thinking. The preferable response is to correct and update problematic claims while preserving therapeutic practices that help people.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]