Thoughtposting

This is because there are two parts to memories - their encoding and their recall. The encoding determines their availability, their recall determines their accessibility. The reason why trauma memory and childhood amnesia are different is in this distinction. Trauma memory is often encoded differently, bypassing to the limbic system where it is stored as intrinsic memory. It can’t be recalled because it was never encoded. Childhood amnesia, however, seems to indicate that the memories are encoded, but we lose access to them as we age. This is most likely due to the development of brain structures that fundamentally change our encoding and recall of memory as we get older.

“I want to do the thing because I view it as important, but trying to get myself to do the thing creates the same reaction as trying to put my hand on a hot stove would.” ← Executive dysfunction, a physical health problem that doesn’t answer to your own free will.

As for the "brain cannot think about it" problem, it could be lots of things. Only you and a health practitioner would be able to deduce what's going on there, but I can give you some avenues to look into based off of what I've experienced for myself.

One thing it could be is just garden-variety inattention—I cannot string two thoughts together when unmedicated, so my mind is prone to wandering instead of actually following through with anything I think about. This is not laziness though; it's my mind foraging for dopamine, and it's doing this because it doesn't have enough to sustain less-rewarding thought-connections. (Experiencing my mind wander like this is typically how I know my medication dose is too low.)

But another thing it could be is a pain-avoidance response. This has less to do with dopamine and more to do with the nervous system, and is additionally not a product of laziness.

Our nervous system is the part of our brain that runs through our entire body. It carries signals from our cranium to the rest of our body and back again, and it's how we make our bodies move and do all the things that we do with it. It's literally our wiring.

The nerve pathways are coated in what's called a myelin sheath. The sheath works very similar to the way the plastic coating around wires work: It protects the pathway and also keeps the electricity, the signals, from getting out.

Now, some of my pathways did not properly myelinate when I was a wee lad. This doesn't feel painful to me, per se, but it feels terrible to my nerves, which are small and feel this distinctly. They get shocked every time a signal goes down a leaky pathway, like rats in an electrified maze.

When I try to think about doing certain activities but can't, it's either because my nerves lack the bandwidth to carry it, or they are shutting down the thought themselves because the very idea is causing that electric shock feeling for them.

When I finally have to do the dreaded task, doing it makes me feel extremely icky. Icky, and like I'm inherently incompetent at doing whatever it is I'm doing.

It literally feels like I'm eroding...because I am. Pushing electricity down faulty circuits is going to cause the wires in it to erode. I know it's especially bad whenever I feel "fizzy" in my body instead of feeling my actual body.

I wouldn't be going into depth about how terrible this is, if it couldn't be fixed. It can, because the body is a Chad like that.

I'm currently doing a physical therapy that recalibrates and re-myelinates these circuits, called MNRI. It doesn't help with the dopamine problem I have, so I'm still on meds, but it's absolutely helping with all the sensory and physiological distresses I've experienced my whole life. Even if certain things are still difficult for me to do, I at least know why and can see that they are improving.

But again. This is not laziness.

Laziness is an action, not the absence of action. When people decide to be lazy, it's because they've decided to value "not caring" over "caring" in that moment—the action they've taken is to not care.

Someone put this in the tags and I think it's worth repeating: If it was laziness, you would be enjoying yourself.

These tests get used for all kinds of stuff, and they get used by a lot of people who don't actually know what they're doing, how to interpret the data, or whether there's any real link between what they're measuring and what they're claiming. It's why you see shit going around like "men think of women as objects because when they look at a woman, the same part of their brain is active as when they look at a tool!" and "if you play Mozart for your baby for twenty minutes then their imagination improves, we imaged the brain to prove it!" and "we found where God is in the brain! Christians have more brain activity in this region than atheists!"

There are numerous problems with this kind of science, but the most pressing issue is the validity of the scans themselves. As I said, there's a fair bit of stats to turn an MRI image into 'brain activity', and then you do even more stats on that to get your results. Bennett et. al.'s work ran one of these sorts of experiments, with one difference -- they used a dead salmon instead of living human subjects. And they got positive results. The same sort of experiment, the same methodology, the same results that people were bandying about as positive results. According to the methodology in common use, dead salmon can distinguish human facial expressions. Meaning one of two things:

Dead salmon can recognise human facial expressions. OR

Everyone else's results are garbage also, none of you have data for any of this junk.

not to mention some doctors have said some wild ableist shit (and even some medical students) :(

I don't have much, but I have directions I can point you towards. (I need to update it, but any sources I do find generally go on my brain blog @prefrontal-bastard.)

First, I highly reccomend the Neuroclastic website for autistic perspectives. This website is by and for autistic folks and features a multitude of people with different expertise and backgrounds, including scientists. I imagine any pertinent developments in our understanding of neurodiversity would probably appear on that website.

I also know the AIR Network Model's website has scientific articles on trauma and dissociation, so I recommend looking into them too.

I'd also look into the MNRI PTSD Recovery Protocol by Svetlana Masgutova, Ph.D. I'm not sure if she's neurodivergent herself, but I would hardly be surprised if she is.

I recommend this because the studies behind her protocol reveal some extremely telling things about neurodiversity and its relationship with trauma. I have one of her books and it goes into the entire neuroscience and testing behind it, but unfortunately copyright laws means I can't, like...share the charts. This approach seems to be the direction the science is taking us on regarding neurodiversity though, so it might be the "in" you're looking for in terms of a non-ableist medical framework.

(The breakdown though, because this shit's fascinating:

Traumatic stressors can cause our nervous systems to blow like overloaded circuits. This causes our primitive reflexes [patterns of movements that reflect the core operating system of mindbody interface] to re-emerge, or to fail to integrate if the trauma was during babyhood.

Evidently, retaining 35% or more of the known reflex patterns produces the symptoms associated with things like sensory processing disorder, autism, ADHD, cerebral palsy, anxiety, or emotional dysregulation. It even contributes to depression and dyslexia.

Dysregulated reflexes can impact damn near anything: cognition, attention, coordination, disposition, emotional reactions, visual /auditory / spacial perception, pain perception and threshold, body growth, mood, and even the function of our digestive and immune systems.

From what I understand, certain primitive reflexes correlate with certain disorders. Apparently the Startle Reflex / Fear Paralysis Reflex and Moro Reflex are highly correlated with Autism diagnosis. Other reflexes potentially contribute to it since this is not a "rigid categories" thing, but those are the two her book is citing in particular here.

You can actually re-integrate these reflexes with exercises, which initially thought was fucking bogus until I tried it and suddenly could perceive and conceptualize things I didn't realize I couldn't before, as well as perceive parts of my body I didn't realize I couldn't perceive before [like my spine].

You can actually find integration exercises on youtube. It's an Occupational Therapy thing, but since it's new and emerging it's not something the average OT knows how to do yet, I'm afraid.

Also, important note: Some reflexes take longer to integrate, others don't. They might have to be integrated in a certain sequence depending on which ones are retained, but I'm not sure what all the sequences are.

Rule of thumb for anyone reading this: If the internal experience of "being you" sucks ass in any way, check your primitive reflexes. It ain't a curse and it ain't the devil, you might just need recalibrating.)

Science refers to the different fields of knowledge that emerge through using a particular model of discernment known as the scientific method.

Simply put, the scientific method is a formal process of doing experiments and seeing what happens. We fuck around, find out, and then fuck around some more based on what we found out. This lets us figure out what things are and how they work.

The drive behind science is curiosity. We have a natural desire to understand the phenomena around us and invent new things. It doesn't beget the need to believe in anything, just to observe things and see what happens when we mess with them.

Treating science as some kind of religious doctrine is how we get Scientism, which is prevelent in nu-atheism and is, most importantly, not science.

Scientism takes scientific content and dumps it into a Christian cognitive framework, treating scientific conclusions as doctrines to abide by rather than as an interpretations of gathered data.

Don’t get me wrong, nu-atheists are fucked up for other reasons. I don’t want to come across as defending them and their bullshit.

But to clarify what Scientism is, it’s not really a religion proper. It’s an anthropological construct that describes a kind of phenomenon that emerges when people handle science like it's a doctrine.

Scientism is basically the view that science is the only legitimate model for deriving meaning from the world.

My folks were guilty of this. They were agnostic and never thought about religion, but that also had some kind of unchecked culturally-Catholic OS running in the background of their mentalities.

One of the major unchecked Catholic things they would do is use conclusions drawn in studies as directives for how to be proper and upstanding people.

For example: If a study came out that said “Science shows that a role is easier to play when you’re dressed for the part,” my parents would interpret that as “we should always dress our kids in nice things to encourage them to be nice people,” completely overlooking the fact that “nice” is relative and that this only works because the wearer finds meaning and value to the outfit they’re wearing.

My folks also had a very weird “sins of the father” scenario going where they’d blame all my allegedly undesirable behavior on my bio-dad’s “bad genetics.” It was not great and got dangerously close to eugenics territory at times.

I came across the word “scientism” when searching for something to describe how my parents thought, because as you can imagine, this stuff legitimately fucked with my head and I needed a point of reference to distingish it from science proper.

My parents kept up with scientific journals and new developments in science. They were excited about the possibilities of science, granted, but they knew it had flaws and taught me about those flaws. As much as I disagree with my parents about their nu-atheism, they raised me in a healthy way when it comes to science. It was not treated like a religion in any way.

I know that I can’t extrapolate what all nu-atheists are like based on this one example, but I have met a lot of atheists of various stripes in my lifetime. They all seemed pretty scientifically literate, but absolutely not in a dogmatic way that was abusive or supported eugenics.

I’m sure that some people do believe in “scientism,” like your parents, but I don’t think it’s so huge of a problem that we need tumblr posts warning about it. I think it’s more an individual problem than a widespread one.

Science refers to the different fields of knowledge that emerge through using a particular model of discernment known as the scientific method.

Simply put, the scientific method is a formal process of doing experiments and seeing what happens. We fuck around, find out, and then fuck around some more based on what we found out. This lets us figure out what things are and how they work.

The drive behind science is curiosity. We have a natural desire to understand the phenomena around us and invent new things. It doesn't beget the need to believe in anything, just to observe things and see what happens when we mess with them.

Treating science as some kind of religious doctrine is how we get Scientism, which is prevelent in nu-atheism and is, most importantly, not science.

Scientism takes scientific content and dumps it into a Christian cognitive framework, treating scientific conclusions as doctrines to abide by rather than as an interpretations of gathered data.

You have to writ eit down though, otherwise it ain't science ...

The drive behind science is curiosity. We have a natural desire to understand the phenomena around us and invent new things. It doesn't beget the need to believe in anything, just to observe things and see what happens when we mess with them.

Which is the deeper reason why medicine is actually not one of the sciences

Now seriusly ... medicine is it's own category but it is not a science ...

Doctors have no erge to get a deeper understanding of the why and how

They have no curiosity

They are ultimately very limited in their aproach

They know, if I do examination A, and thing B is the result patient has thing C

Paradox reactions, subclinical presentation or other conditions that may hide sympoms etc. ... are not something they do or even want to contemlate becasue the make everything to complivcated for heir little head

So they do thing A and if there is any other result then B they shrugg and send the patent on their merry way becasue ultimately they are cowards

Honestly, every time a doctor doesn't imidiately find an answer, they look like they are gonna start crying ...

That's also the reson they gaslight their patiets ... otherwise they had to admit that they are not far reoved from the butchers of the 19th century ...

However, the presence of shitty doctors within medicine doesn't mean medicine is not a scientific field, nor that it isn't driven by curiosity. It's just like any field, in which it's also full of people who are shit at their job.

Now you're free to tell me I'm wrong all you'd like, but I'll go into this further if just for the sake of my followers...because if there's one thing I can't stand about this damn website, it's when people here insist something is inherently bad because it's inherently complicated.

I don't know where you live, but speaking as a USAmerican: The reason why medicine gets shitty here has everything to do with the kind of profiteering we allow in the United States regarding it, not the nature of the field. If you want to put the blame on something, blame the laws, policies, and venture capitalism that allow for shitty doctors and shitty practices to exist with impunity in the first place.

The difference of laws and policies between states means Healthcare quality actually varies VASTLY between states here. The difference between the patient-focused model of Minnesota healthcare and the business-focused model that is Florida healthcare is fucking laughable.

The truth of the matter is, medications only work as well as what doctors know how to prescribe, and doctors only know as much as what they were taught and continue to learn.

Additionally, a general practitioner is typically only that—a generalist. They know how to conduct annual checkups, treat colds and flues, and identify common rashes and symptoms. Most of them don't know how to treat things like depression, anxiety, mental issues, neurological issues, PTSD, joint issues, bone issues, nervous system issues, immune system issues, digestive issues, or any affliction of any nature that's persistent and chronic.

For those, you need to request that your doctor refer you to a specialist. That's also part of their job. And if they don't do that job, you have the right to request their denial be noted in your records.

And then, you find a new doctor, one who will refer you to a specialist.

Science refers to the different fields of knowledge that emerge through using a particular model of discernment known as the scientific method.

Simply put, the scientific method is a formal process of doing experiments and seeing what happens. We fuck around, find out, and then fuck around some more based on what we found out. This lets us figure out what things are and how they work.

The drive behind science is curiosity. We have a natural desire to understand the phenomena around us and invent new things. It doesn't beget the need to believe in anything, just to observe things and see what happens when we mess with them.

Treating science as some kind of religious doctrine is how we get Scientism, which is prevelent in nu-atheism and is, most importantly, not science.

Scientism takes scientific content and dumps it into a Christian cognitive framework, treating scientific conclusions as doctrines to abide by rather than as an interpretations of gathered data.

Don’t get me wrong, nu-atheists are fucked up for other reasons. I don’t want to come across as defending them and their bullshit.

But to clarify what Scientism is, it’s not really a religion proper. It’s an anthropological construct that describes a kind of phenomenon that emerges when people handle science like it's a doctrine.

Scientism is basically the view that science is the only legitimate model for deriving meaning from the world.

My folks were guilty of this. They were agnostic and never thought about religion, but that also had some kind of unchecked culturally-Catholic OS running in the background of their mentalities.

One of the major unchecked Catholic things they would do is use conclusions drawn in studies as directives for how to be proper and upstanding people.

For example: If a study came out that said “Science shows that a role is easier to play when you’re dressed for the part,” my parents would interpret that as “we should always dress our kids in nice things to encourage them to be nice people,” completely overlooking the fact that “nice” is relative and that this only works because the wearer finds meaning and value to the outfit they’re wearing.

My folks also had a very weird “sins of the father” scenario going where they’d blame all my allegedly undesirable behavior on my bio-dad’s “bad genetics.” It was not great and got dangerously close to eugenics territory at times.

I came across the word “scientism” when searching for something to describe how my parents thought, because as you can imagine, this stuff legitimately fucked with my head and I needed a point of reference to distingish it from science proper.