Study Confirms: Whatever Doesn't Kill Us Can Make Us Stronger

[toska]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101015125645.htm

"Seery, senior author of the study, says previous research indicates that exposure to adverse life events typically predicts negative effects on mental health and well-being, such that more adversity predicts worse outcomes.
But in this study of a national survey panel of 2,398 subjects assessed repeatedly from 2001 to 2004, Seery and co-researchers found those exposed to some adverse events reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than people with a high history of adversity or those with no history of adversity."

Awesome!!!

 

[toska]

Oops maybe this should go in the psychology forum.

 

[IndigoSensor]

[mods]Moved to the psychology forum.[/mods]

 

[TinyBubbles]

This runs counter to common sense and to my own experience, and the timing is a little curious, so I'll take it with a grain of salt, but I guess for some individuals it would be true. Just a few weeks (months?) ago I read an article describing another study which claimed the exact opposite, that people do not come out of difficult experiences without long term psychological scars, particularly those who suffered in childhood.

 

[KazeCraven]

Way too vague. At this level it seems obvious that the true answer is both: whatever doesn't kill us can make us stronger and can make us weaker.

 

[jyrffw54]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsO6ZnUZI0g&ob=av2e"]YouTube - Kanye West - Stronger[/ame]


I believe it in a physical sense, but not a psychological sense

 

[Kavalan]

Way too vague. At this level it seems obvious that the true answer is both: whatever doesn't kill us can make us stronger and can make us weaker.

I agree. It all comes down to how the events stack up...

If the event is equivalent to a 5 year old fighting Manny Pacquiao where Manny is the event... I don't think there's any sort of getting stronger there.

also how one deals with trauma will play a factor.

 

[sassafras]

Did anyone else read the title of this thread and wonder why we even needed to conduct a scientific inquiry into the matter? It just seems rather obvious to me. When faced with an obstacle, you have two options. You either take it head on or you lay down and let it take you. Every obstacle you overcome successfully, you build self-esteem. Every obstacle you don't overcome, your self-esteem suffers (either a little bit or a lot, depending). Good self esteem = generally good mental health, greater propensity towards life-satisfaction. Bad self esteem = at risk for poor mental health (depression, anxiety, personality disorders etc), greater propensity towards general dissatisfaction with life.

Of course there are times when you do take the problem head on and the obstacle is too big and overwhelming that bowls you over through no fault of your own. Your self-esteem may suffer a little bit. Or it may suffer a lot. On the flip side, if you don't face any obstacles in life, you don't give yourself a chance to trust yourself to contend with life's problems and your resilience suffers. It's like training a muscle in the gym. Too much weight, and you'll strain. No weight at all, and you never grow.

I'm sure the research provides other valuable insights into the matter of resilience, but the way the article presented it, it makes me want to slap them with a big sticker that says "d'uh!"

 

[KazeCraven]

Did anyone else read the title of this thread and wonder why we even needed to conduct a scientific inquiry into the matter? It just seems rather obvious to me. ... I'm sure the research provides other valuable insights into the matter of resilience, but the way the article presented it, it makes me want to slap them with a big sticker that says "d'uh!"

Yeah, a lot of psychological research seems pretty pointless, though having worked in the field much of it is just because it's based on intuition, or folk psychology. This one in particular was probably to try to make a point, especially considered the way it's framed. If it were just to cover scientific ground, I think we'd have better places to focus our time on.

 

[On my own path]

This runs counter to common sense and to my own experience, and the timing is a little curious, so I'll take it with a grain of salt, but I guess for some individuals it would be true. Just a few weeks (months?) ago I read an article describing another study which claimed the exact opposite, that people do not come out of difficult experiences without long term psychological scars, particularly those who suffered in childhood.

Recently I have developed quite a deal of contempt for much of psychology and the other behavioral sciences for this very reason- they seem much to absolutist in their approach. Of course the other possibility as I see it is that the media delivers the "findings" of scientific studies in such a manner that it seems to be absolutist.

Yeah, a lot of psychological research seems pretty pointless, though having worked in the field much of it is just because it's based on intuition, or folk psychology. This one in particular was probably to try to make a point, especially considered the way it's framed. If it were just to cover scientific ground, I think we'd have better places to focus our time on.

I concur with your statement- this is my other issue with much of psychology

 

[KazeCraven]

[MENTION=2087]On my own path[/MENTION]; If I italicized seems, would you still agree?

My point is that there are probably better things to do with research money, but psychological research is by no means pointless. Even this study.

 

[Blind Bandit]

This runs counter to common sense and to my own experience, and the timing is a little curious, so I'll take it with a grain of salt, but I guess for some individuals it would be true. Just a few weeks (months?) ago I read an article describing another study which claimed the exact opposite, that people do not come out of difficult experiences without long term psychological scars, particularly those who suffered in childhood.

I happen to agree with April. I've found that most of those with a hard life aren't better. And those that appear to be simply ignore their past and the scars they leave. They may seem ok but deep down their not. They live hard and do anything they can often archive a great deal but they don't dare stop and introspect or they will really feel those scars.

 

[middle1]

I happen to agree with April. I've found that most of those with a hard life aren't better. And those that appear to be simply ignore their past and the scars they leave. They may seem ok but deep down their not. They live hard and do anything they can often archive a great deal but they don't dare stop and introspect or they will really feel those scars.

True for alot.

I've tried to deal with my issues and grow from them. I don't let them be a crutch or defy me. I can't deny the things I've been through haven't had an affect on me and changed my view of the world.

But I'm alive, and stronger.

Maybe I'm an exception.