Sociopath Community

Trauma can be put on a sliding scale of perception, where one's mortal wound is merely a flesh wound to another.  There's much of perspective here, which is pertinent to the subject (person) in question and makes it very individual.

Disorders aren't always trauma-based, since there is evidence that there are genetic bases for some, such as schizophrenia.  It is also of some concern labeling people on the autism spectrum as having a disorder ("Autism Spectrum Disorder" in fact).  Are people born with this disordered?  We then broaden a definition of trauma to include "natural" causes.  We appeal to norms and use of language (semantics) again.

I guess ultimately it is a question of categorization, which in turn helps focus rehabilitative efforts toward the more effective methods, through historic precedence and gathered evidence.

Reposting a link to that study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1858696/

I could probably quote more.  Again, I haven't combed the meat of this paper on specifics and correlations and so forth...  I'm not quite sure it's real target subjects and if it is relevant, but it's something to consider in counterfactual incidence.

I guess, one difference is that it's for "psychiatric patients at intake" which means people that are committed for some reason (sounds like it might be suicidal ideation, probably).  These are the clinical, more extreme cases and might not be applicable to people at large.  It's a different sample selection, with a bias.

Genes, environment..

.

I appreciate this thread and I suppose that hmm,  more the point that I was trying to make is that we have more power to heal and be freed from limiting patterns of behavior than a lot of us believe,  and we can access that power by believing in it and exploring the root causes of the limiting behavior patterns in ourselves and searching ourselves for the solutions

Oddly enough, I think that was part of what I was getting to, too.

...I figured it might be semantic. :)

Is the core of what you dislike that mental illness can be a scapegoat for blame?

No, the use of language was (paraphrasing) that "trauma always is the cause of disorder".  My original grievance was that one "can't blame mental illness on one thing".  But in this sense "disorder" and "mental illness" were interchangeable -- even if not exactly equivalent, though, such a thing I think remains true.  ("can't blame mental illness on one thing" == "can't blame disorder on one thing")

That "one thing" being trauma, basically.  How come?  Well, there are genetic or neurological "disorders" and those that aren't classically thought of as derived through trauma: like schizophrenia and autism spectrum.  They are classified as "disorders", but can they be attributed to be caused by things considered "trauma"?  So "always" amounted to hyperbole and when considering treatment options, might not give an accurate assessment.

(I was looking how I might present this using predicate logic, but it's been a while and I grew lazy, so here's the plain English attempt.)

(While "neurological" might also refer to disorders/mental illness derived from "trauma" -- injury -- to the brain, this is more neurochemical from factors other than such things.  Of course, this leads to how one defines "trauma", and yadda yadda.)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. A lot of disorders do have genetic components, even ones typically one might not think would be, like AsPD, BPD, HPD (which I found out some time ago seems to have a neurochemical component). People tend to see others like a blank slate that gets impressions on it over time. Identical twin studies show that we're more like a set of hardware with a baseline configuration (temperament), and experience helps us generate "software" to interface with the environment. I also generally dislike that trauma is held as such a focal thing for the development of disorders, like not every mode of disordered thought patterns stems from a Linkin Park song.