Anyone interested in academic rigour might turn to the work of Michael Scheeringa, particularly his text The Body Does Not Keep the Score, which offers a corrective to van der Kolk’s more hyperbole.
It is also worth recalling that ‘trauma’ is not itself a diagnosis, but rather one of many potential aetiologies of psychopathology. Resilience – even to the most terrible of events – appears to be the norm rather than the exception, suggesting that factors beyond the trauma (e.g. genetics) are at play.
Finally, although they show promise, the excitement around psychedelics has extended way beyond the evidence.
Paul thank you for this comment! Could you expand on Scheeringa's criticisms? I have not read his book yet (I want to) but I heard at one point he turns to critiquing Van der Kork as being on a marxist agenda... which left me unsure about his book.
It’s probably beyond the scope of this comment to give a detailed account of Scheeringa’s criticisms, however broadly speaking he identifies most of van der Kolks claims - as well as concepts such as cPTSD and toxic stress - as unscientific and based on anecdote.
His points about van der Kolk’s politics are really an attempt to explain why this has happened, and should be seen as separate from his scientific critique.
Anyone interested in academic rigour might turn to the work of Michael Scheeringa, particularly his text The Body Does Not Keep the Score, which offers a corrective to van der Kolk’s more hyperbole.
It is also worth recalling that ‘trauma’ is not itself a diagnosis, but rather one of many potential aetiologies of psychopathology. Resilience – even to the most terrible of events – appears to be the norm rather than the exception, suggesting that factors beyond the trauma (e.g. genetics) are at play.
Finally, although they show promise, the excitement around psychedelics has extended way beyond the evidence.
Paul thank you for this comment! Could you expand on Scheeringa's criticisms? I have not read his book yet (I want to) but I heard at one point he turns to critiquing Van der Kork as being on a marxist agenda... which left me unsure about his book.
Thank you for the comment back 😀
It’s probably beyond the scope of this comment to give a detailed account of Scheeringa’s criticisms, however broadly speaking he identifies most of van der Kolks claims - as well as concepts such as cPTSD and toxic stress - as unscientific and based on anecdote.
His points about van der Kolk’s politics are really an attempt to explain why this has happened, and should be seen as separate from his scientific critique.
Will check it out, thank you!!