The problem with the trauma model is that it would explain the outcomes even if it as false, as almost everyone will have had a traumatic or adverse experience at some point in their lives, and anyone who hasn't has been sheltered to a point that is in itself traumatic.
Telling someone that past trauma is the cause of their problem, and going through some ritual to find and process it will in some sense heal them, is a textbook example of suggestion.
We know this can make people feel better as long as they buy into it, crux being it also works if we say unrestful ancestral spirits or unbalanced humors are at fault.
The problem with the trauma model is that only the trauma is looked at. NOT the environment that caused it. Because nearly every trauma ... happens at school, and it is the responsibility of teachers and more generally the government. None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this, and certainly not considering that the problem is always specific individuals, essentially always teachers.
(because if it's other kids, that too is legally and practically the responsibility of teachers, and it's always specific teachers that don't have a good grip on what happens in class or on the playground)
And the problem is not even necessarily that these people are responsible, but that they won't stop and the trauma will repeat and repeat and repeat again and again, until the kids either run away or use violence to resolve it. Then, of course, you punish the kids harshly for doing that, and find extremely scary sounding names for what the kids did. Anti-social behavior. Theft. No conscience. Psychopaths. Oh but teachers bullying kids in class, that is not psychopathy. Even teachers failing to prevent bullies attacking other kids on purpose, that is not anti-social behavior. Teachers asking kids to become drug dealers, that is NOT a sign of no conscience. School, police and government cooperating to hide that this happens is not illegal or wrong or any of those things and certainly they can't be expected to fix such problems, and certainly the state can't be expected to pay for the consequences the way they demand of everyone else. ONLY the kids' behavior is antisocial.
Yesterday on Netflix I watched "I am a killer", and they showed that a particular woman was proud of what she's done. Of course there was a slight gap in what the police and judge believed had happened. You see, this kid was abandoned by the government (parents kept her home, and didn't even give her enough food. The government visited every once every 8 months and of course child services help was far worse than being left at home). She fixed this situation ... by drug running, and that, she kept doing for 20 years. Now after 15 years she was in the same house where a drug-related murder happened, and "cooperated" with the murder. By then, she had kids, who where in the house and people she could not physically beat were very angry, so she did not intervene. She called the police on the fight the weeks before. They never showed up. The police accusation of her "cooperation" with the murder is 90% that she never called authorities, and didn't risk herself or her kids. She then pointed out that it isn't even true that she didn't intervene, she had called the authorities hundreds of times over 20 years, including not long before the murder about the very same fight, but her expectations of help ... shall we say "evolved" over those hundreds of times she asked for help. When she called the week before, nobody responded. She then also helped hide the body, expecting that the police would punish her if they found out.
Now of course according to the police the cause of such actions are psychopathy, antisocial behavior, not having a conscience, being evil, ... and so on.
The cause of the situation is NOT, and shall NEVER be considered to be that she had an expectation that even if the police reacted, they would either do nothing, or punish her. And this sort of thinking, no matter how rational, shall not even be mentioned in the case at any point, no matter how often she repeats it. It shall ESPECIALLY not be mentioned that this is in fact exactly what happened.
You see, she was right. The police eventually of course intervened (when the guy was 2 months dead, and it wasn't even theoretically possible to help anyone anymore, by the way) ... and punished her.
But of course the state, the non-reaction of everyone whose only job it is to prevent this sort of situation from building to this point, is just totally innocent. The fact that they did not just fail ... but purposefully abandoned her, and especially not that such behavior could be considered to make her reaction rational.
Oh and that when she was arrested she fought her way to her kids, and then told them that the police were going to take her away, take them away, and punish her kids for what happened as well, that that is just how the world works, that they should now care for themselves and ask a particular person "for a job" is the reason the judge added 10 years to her sentence. Of course, from some perspectives, she was simply relaying what happened to her, warn them, and give advice that helped her. Obviously this proves she is evil. That she mentioned she was proud of herself for warning her kids, especially, makes her evil, it was called out specifically by the judge.
Why? Obviously because it shows what police, and society in general, will do to help you. Not only will the police, and judges, and child services, and schools, and ... NOT help, they will punish YOU for anything that goes wrong. That is all they ever do. They will do this ESPECIALLY if it's their fault and their responsibility that things went bad, and it won't matter, at all, how illegal their actions are (yes, it is illegal for the state to fail to get kids to school. Of course, child services regularly physically prevents kids from going to school. This is apparently allowed for child services, that is normal, and that even fucking death row makes accommodations for inmates to go to school is not hypocritical at all). There is ZERO police culpability for not helping in the lead up to the murder. For not helping her as a kid. Zero culpability for child services for failing for 13 years to get her to school. Zero culpability for the school for not making it happen. None whatsoever. There is ZERO responsibility of the state for not helping her to the point she can't read. For not helping her with violent fights at her home. And, above all, you can't even mention that this, of course, wasn't in fact "the state", or "the police" or ... that didn't help, that it was specific individuals that have a name and a responsibility, specific government employees that could be asked to account for their failures.
> None of the trauma literature even looks at what to change to prevent this
Untrue, overgeneralized. I can provide a lengthy list of literature about that, but for now will refer you merely to one of the most prominent researchers who also happened to coin the term Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and pushed for its inclusion in the diagnosis manuals, Judith Herman. Even Sigmund Freud wrote a bunch of highly critical political works, like “Cilivization and its Discontents”.
Sigmund Freud is a person who became rich protecting rapists. His best paying product? "Consultancy".
What did that mean? He'd testify in court how women invite rape. How it is the dream, the deepest desire of every woman to get raped, ideally by their own sons and brothers, and they do everything possible to achieve that. Of course, he only testified for (a lot of) money. Oh, and he'd testify that because such women were a "danger to public morals", they should be incarcerated. He achieved that outcome (women accuses man of rape, Freud testifies, man goes free, woman gets locked up in one of Freud's facilities, paid for by the man, of course)
Oh and just in case you think men came off better: you know what the deepest desire of men is? Murder. Both murdering and getting murdered. He meant (just as he did with women) in general, that every last man desired to murder every other man in existence, and specifically his father, then rape his mother.
Freud's paid testimonies got more than one rapists off scot-free and their victim incarcerated.
You see where the problem with psychological theories is and how bad it gets? Because, of course, Freud immediately preceded something called "industrial psychiatry". Don't look it up. You don't want to know.
And, as your very comment illustrates, this has not caused psychiatry to distance themselves from the man. Of course, psychiatry hasn't even seen the need to distance themselves from the holocaust:
I did not refer to Freud because I agree with his ideas. The claim was that psychotherapists do not look at environmental and societal origins of psychological disorders, which is false, plenty do. Have you looked into the material by Judith Hermann, the other psychotherapist I mentioned? You will find that she writes at length about Freuds denial and patriarchical circumstances.
As someone who has dealt with ideas from social workers since before I could talk, I strongly disagree. Having such ideas applied to a "troubled kid" (by the way, people decided I was troubled at age 3. Of course, the issue, which I will NOT explain, was a teacher). Eventually my parents did pay for psychotherapist for a short time (under threat from a social worker), but societal/insurance help will not pay for anyone even remotely qualified when "helping" a kid, and that means no psychotherapists, only social workers. That psychotherapist, by the way, did agree the problem was somewhere else (mostly because unlike the vast majority of troubled kids I am very smart and I could clearly describe why things happen, both why I myself make specific decisions and why others do). He made a recommendation, which people hoped would involve locking me up, but instead it was promptly ripped to shreds before we were even out of the room, never to reach the people it was about. They did succeed in locking me up for a while by the way, but that ended when I threw an attendant off the stairs (to protect a girl, I was 13), and then went on a day-long walk with the girl. You see, when I was 3 the recommendation was to give me an outlet, fighting sports. By 7 I was winning championships, by 12 I had won a championship in 2 different fighting sports and by age 16 in three. Anyway, after that, the social workers involved for over 10 years decided nothing was wrong with me, and I was home and cured half an hour after dinner the same day. I still have the gift the girl gave me.
If what you mean is that social workers, who don't know anything, are very occasionally invited to schools to tell students "drugs are bad, mmm'kay", sometimes while a teacher who forces his students to sell drugs is taking a break in the teacher's lounge. If that is what you call "looking at environmental and societal origins ..." then yes, that happens. Obviously, this practice makes things worse, not better, as the social workers involved have been informed they lose their jobs if a kid saying "Master blah makes use sell pills" reaches the police. There is, of course, no better way to show kids that crime and violence work and can pay. Government workers, which includes teachers, see themselves as above the law, and more often than not, they're right. They are allowed to go much further than anyone else.
I actually like that in Breaking Bad the whole thing starts in a school. If you think about it for 5 seconds you'll quickly realize that in reality this might be a good idea. Schools are both the perfect environment for drugs and a great environment to make them. A captive workforce (the kids), government protection, and hundreds of easily blamed victims, who aren't even innocent, and on top of everything else, who people will be disinclined to believe ... What's totally unrealistic about Breaking Bad, of course, is the idea a drug-dealing teacher won't involve the schoolchildren. School children are the perfect drug dealers. And that the police doesn't so much as suspect the teacher when showing that school equipment was used to make extra-lethal drugs seems entirely on-point though. Extra-lethal? Yes, extra-pure = extra lethal, a fact that would be evident for someone with knowledge of chemistry. So his moral reasoning makes no sense. He both genuinly protects and poisons children for the exact same reason.
By the way: did you know it is actually legally forbidden for child protection agencies to investigate or accuse schools or anyone in them? Oh and neither is the police (technically the police isn't allowed to investigate a child's claim, also hearsay, in other words responding to parents' claims is also not allowed). "Fun" fact, that. Strange, isn't it, how the law supposedly applies to government workers, but there are all sorts of rules that govern how government workers' behavior and crimes are to be investigated, or rather NOT allowed to be investigated, and who can make accusations, or should I say that the victims are forbidden from making accusations. And I guarantee schools will set social workers onto the victim, the kid, and I guarantee what social workers will do will effectively be a heavy punishment for the kid.
Schools, where pretty much every psychiatric problem is created and carefully ignored and left to fester until it explodes. Then we continue with the kids, usually not the one with the actual psychiatric problem, get harshly punished and described as everything from psychopaths to outright evil.
One thing I heard VERY often: you judge people by their actions, not by what they say. Well, this is what psychotherapists, social workers, psychiatry, ... DO. What you claim they say, well, whatever. It's about as realistic as discussing how romantic evenings would be if the moon were painted pink. What I described is what psychotherapists DO, or at least cooperate with. And you are describing pink moon evenings.
Also, given what Freud did his ideas should be thrown out of psychology along with any mention of the man, other than what a horrible immoral asshole he was, his name should instead only be mentioned as cautionary tale in history books like dr. Mengele's name, and the same goes for a great deal of other famous psychiatrists, like Hans Asperger. Like dr. Mengele, any science with any of these names in it in any way other than a huge "THESE ARE MONSTERS" warning, is not worth practicing.
Can you point to a single case where, when she "treated" someone, she reported a school teacher or official to the authorities for abusing children? Just one?
Telling someone that past trauma is the cause of their problem, and going through some ritual to find and process it will in some sense heal them, is a textbook example of suggestion.
We know this can make people feel better as long as they buy into it, crux being it also works if we say unrestful ancestral spirits or unbalanced humors are at fault.