A brutal fact is that trauma is much harder to overcome when the people around you don't understand what's going on inside you. I really want to do something about that, and while I don't expect to be reaching an especially wide audience here, I can at least provide information for survivors and the people who want to know how to better support them.
I will not be sharing my personal experiences on here very much, because I don't have it in me to deal with attacks and judgements from strangers. Instead I'll be focusing mostly on posts and reblogs that help shed light on CPTSD and clear up misconceptions about trauma and healing. I'll also do some posts about general mental health and psychology here and there.
These posts aren't written in anger, and they're not venting, nor are they a bid for sympathy. They're written in a genuine hope of bridging gaps and encouraging empathy. I'm not looking for discourse or debate. The only reason I'm putting time into this is because I want to make a positive difference, and I like educating people.
This is a side blog. Anon asks are off. Reblogs and replies are welcome and encouraged, but please don't be an asshole. This blog itself is an act of recovery.
Some follow-up sources on my post discussing what "Feelings aren't facts" really means and how a shift towards "I..." statements is a better way to navigate conflict:
Nonviolent Communication - a process established by Marshall Rosenberg in the 1960s for conflict mitigation that is now around the world, not only as a tool for everyday personal conflicts, but by groups like the UN for international diplomacy and prevention of violent escalation
Therapy Speak Weaponized, Part 1: "Feelings aren't facts."
Intro to this series
Okay. I'm starting with one you might not immediately think is relevant to you if you haven't personally misused this phrase, but the impacts of its misuse are pretty huge and absolutely everyone can benefit from its appropriate use as an actual communication skill, so I hope you'll at least read some of it, and maybe reblog it for others to learn from.
The way you've heard it used: "Feelings aren't facts, so your feelings are wrong, they have no place in this discussion, and I don't care about them."
What this does: Shuts down discussion and implies the idea that feelings have no place in communication. Condescending, dismissing. A retort used to end a conversation.
You might also think it's meant to be used as a sort of silent affirmation to tell yourself to simply "stop" feeling an inconvenient emotion.
This is not what it means! In fact, this is pretty much the complete opposite of how it's meant to be understood and used. And it hurts the people who were supposed to use it to improve how they relate to others.
Let's get a few things cleared up, and then I'll tell you why knowing this should matter to you, and why the social media era that has misused it actually makes it more relevant than ever to the average person.
"Feelings are not facts" was never intended to be used as a retort to another human expressing their feelings. It is not meant to be the end of a discussion.
It was never meant to be used as a slogan without being followed by the action taught alongside it in counseling. Affirmations without action are meaningless. They do not teach us anything about ourselves or others, and they do not work.
It was never intended to promote downplaying, concealing, or suppressing one's feelings about a person or situation. Concealing and suppressing your feelings or berating another person into doing the same is not a part of any psychological or behavioral therapy.
"Feelings aren't facts" isn't a standalone statement! It's shorthand for this:
"Even though I feel angry/scared/hurt/suspicious/anxious/ignored/etc, I know that my feelings do not necessarily reflect the facts."
Reminding yourself is not the entire work, either! The next step is to apply it so it actually means something.
The application is: "So, I'm going to try to learn what the facts are, instead of acting upon those feelings first."
What this does: It STOPS catastrophizing. That's it. That's what it's for.
It derails the cycle of rumination. It tells you that even though you feel, you do not know, and that both are key to what your reaction should be.
It means that instead of acting out on the worst conclusion, you seek clarification. It means you communicate. It means you ask instead of accuse or assume. It is an emotional maturity skill and a social skill!
It's often taught to people with varying types of anxiety disorders, for improving their social relationships. That's who it is for, and who is being hurt by its misappropriation.
Now, stay with me here even if you are not one of those people, please, because this isn't just a tool for people in therapy.
The message behind it is also foundational to one of the most common pieces of advice in conflict mediation and resolution, which is to always try to use "I feel..." statements instead of "You are..." statements.
What does that mean? It means acknowledging and naming your feelings in a productive way instead of a hostile one. It honors the impact of your feelings and also opens a dialogue instead of making an assumption of wrongdoing.
"I feel ignored" vs the accusation "You are ignoring me"
"Are you mad?" vs the accusation "Why are you mad?"
It's a crucial communication skill for every single person in this world, but unfortunately it's usually only taught to people who are in counseling because they're already having a fight or they already know they have a problem with acting too quickly on feelings and beliefs.
I'll tell you what, though. You almost certainly have that problem, too, and in a world where a lot of communication happens through text, which inherently leaves a LOT of room for misinterpretation, this can mean the difference between friendships lasting or breaking.
Stop assuming you have all the information you need to judge, rebuke, or dismiss someone.
You can acknowledge emotional impact while admitting that you're uncertain of the other person's intent.
I'm begging you: get comfortable with asking questions about other people's feelings and intentions and genuinely wanting an answer so that a resolution can happen.
Now, based on personal experience, there's something else I gotta tell you, because they do NOT tell you this part when they teach you the first: It doesn't matter how well you've absorbed this skill or how consistently you use it if the people you're talking to haven't also learned it.
I've found time and time again that people who don't use questions or "I feel" statements also don't respond well to receiving them, and to me they're some of the most terrifying people to try to communicate with, even when they're a person I really like and want to have a better relationship with.
It's possible to tell someone your entire thought process, from "this made me worry but I realize I might be wrong so this is why I'm asking instead of assuming" to "and if something is wrong I want to know so I can fix it because this matters to me" and some people will still come back with outright anger and accusing you of hostility. It is terrifying when the tool you've learned to overcome your fears just makes people angrier.
So I'm also begging you to get comfortable with being asked questions that are seeking to clarify your feelings or intentions.
The fact that they're asking instead of assuming shows both a desire to understand and a willingness to trust. Be appreciative of that and reciprocate it.
"My feelings about you are real, but they may not be based in fact" is about reconciliation, emotional regulation, and communication. Please stop using it to mean something else.
Hey. We all know social media has caused an increase in the misuse of therapy and psychology terms/phrases, right? Bear with me for a minute.
Concepts taught in actual counseling sessions and psychology texts for decades as real tools to foster communication and emotional regulation are stripped of context, applied extremely broadly, and rapidly given an entirely new meaning. It's more than just annoying. It does serious, real-life harm to those who have spent years putting in the work to absorb these tools and use them to heal - and also to the people who wholeheartedly embrace the new, social media flavored version to their own lives, and the people on the receiving end of the behavior they mistakenly think it condones.
Sometimes they become so far removed from their original purpose that the negative connotations are enough to make the average social media user roll their eyes and stop taking the discussion seriously when they were created to be used by certain people to reach out for help when it's needed most (for example, "trigger").
Sometimes a diagnosis requiring years of education and hours of case study become pointed insults to be thrown out when someone feels like 'asshole' just isn't cutting enough ("BPD" and "narcissistic," to name just two).
They're overused to the point of meaning anything from 'inconvenient' to 'evil' ("toxic"). They're used as blanket concepts to cut people off and cut them out ("no one owes you anything," "protect your peace"), and what you might notice is that no matter how they're being misapplied, that new meaning is almost always used to excuse dismissive, avoidant, or hostile behavior towards other people.
The effect is that tools to be used for healing by people stigmatized and struggling to find help are being turned into insults, snarky comebacks, and antisocial philosophies, often under the guise of positivity, self-help and compassion.
Here's the thing. I'm not saying all this just to yell at people who misuse and misapply these terms. I like educating people. I want to help undo some of the damage done by helping even just a few people use them in a way that helps humans, like they were meant to in the first place. Some of them can even help those whose mental health is already in a great place, or who have never struggled with mental illness or trauma. I want to help people be nicer and more understanding in little steps, because it makes a difference that matters.
So, I'm going to do a little series on some of these, and I'll compile the list of links here as I write them.
This problem is definitely not exclusive to people with CPTSD, but it can take a particularly terrible toll on people working to heal from CPTSD by reinforcing the exact beliefs they're trying to overcome - often, the simple act of telling another person how their words or actions have made them feel takes a tremendous effort on the CPTSD survivor and marks a step in the healing process, but just as often, this step towards healing is immediately punished, keeping the CPTSD survivor's trauma responses physically active in the nervous system.
As discussed, the everyday fawning behaviors are rarely recognized as fawning and are in fact consistently praised and reinforced as "easy to get along with."
When a situation triggers a serious trauma response, fawning starts to show up in far more extreme ways, most of which the people who regularly praised the habitual behaviors find far less appealing. Nonetheless it is key to understand that these responses are the expansion of the habitual behaviors. They are the result of a nervous system that has been trained that both:
1) the triggering situation is a sign of real life pain and danger,
and 2) these responses have worked in past situations to prevent or mitigate said danger.
While typically unhelpful in situations not involving an Abuser or Abusers, these responses are, at their core, an attempt to convey a message of submission in hopes of de-escalation.
What does the Fawn Response look like when fully activated by a triggering situation?
Subtle submissiveness:
Smiling at an aggressor while fearing imminent physical assault or molestation. A "de-escalation" reflex often seen in women towards sexual aggressors. Core message: “I don’t want any trouble, so you don’t need to hurt me"
Reassurance towards the person perceived as a threat in the form of affection, favors, or repeated declarations of not being upset or angry, even when angry and/or deeply hurt. Core message: “I don’t want to fight, so please don’t hurt me”
Overt submissiveness:
Frantic apologizing and/or outright begging for the confrontation to stop. Core message: “Please stop hurting me”
Over-apologizing and over-explaining, sometimes even before a conflict has arisen: Core message: "Please let me convince you not to hurt me"
Physically cowering/trying to appear smaller when voicing disagreement, sometimes even when there are no immediate threat signs. Core message: "I'm not a threat to you, so please don't hurt me"
Maladaptive appeasement:
Agreeing with the person who is perceived as a threat. Appeasing, self deprecating, bargaining, "taking back" earlier disagreements. “You’re right," "I’m sorry, I fucked up," "I was stupid," and/or repeating and agreeing with accusations or insults made by the perceived threat. Core message: “You’ve won this fight/I won’t keep fighting back, so please stop hurting me”
In the aftermath:
Making strong, sometimes prolonged, efforts to repair even when the other person does not offer repair from their end
Blaming themselves for the entire conflict and/or ensuing fallout.
Internalizing accusations or insults made by the other party
All of these can blend into the flight or freeze response when attempts to placate are unsuccessful, in the form of disappearing or “shutting down.”
Everyone knows Fight and Flight, but one of the most pervasive but under-recognized trauma responses is the Fawn Response.
Functionally, Fawning is survival through submission: it's the result of being trained that submission and appeasement are the only way to mitigate, prevent, or stop abuse.
It often shows up in habitual behaviors, many of which are minimized as simply "people pleasing" and even praised and reinforced as being "agreeable," "uncontroversial," "easy-going," "low maintenance," and the classic, "you're too nice/nice to a fault." These can include:
Fear of expressing needs:
Being easily silenced, embarrassed, shamed, or intimidated out of self expression of needs, boundaries, opinions, etc.
Apologizing for voicing needs or for being a perceived "inconvenience." Prefacing questions or needs with "I'm sorry, but," "I know this annoying, but," etc.
Fear and habitual avoidance of conflict, even low level:
Frequent shrinking and self-silencing to avoid conflict or perceived threat of conflict. Refraining from expressing any opinion that peers have expressed discomfort or disdain for.
Attempts to diffuse tension or perceived tension with compliments, by trying to amuse, distract, or entertain.
High sensitivity to body language, tone shifts, or silence - all signs that indicated real life danger in past experiences. The check-ins: "Are you mad?" "Did I do something wrong?" "I'm sorry if I made you mad." "I just want to make sure everything is okay."
Habitual, reflexive ingratiating and appeasing:
Ensuring safety by being agreeable and/or helpful/useful. Reflexively saying "okay" to requests or suggestions, often before fully processing what's being agreed to. Typically followed by feeling trapped by that agreement and a fear of being seen as dishonest or unreliable.
Saying "It's okay" or "Don't worry about it" in response to an apology without actually feeling it - or even still being extremely hurt or angry - purely to ease tension or out of fear of conflict.
Reflexively backing down or giving in when challenged - often before fully processing the situation - and immediately regretting it. The "oh, sorry," that comes way too quickly. Commonly "stacks up" over time with the same individual or set of individuals, resulting in an overall shrinking or silencing of entire aspects of one's personality while in their company.
The standard Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for anxiety disorders doesn't work for CPTSD, because it's founded in the patient reminding themselves that their fear is irrational and probably will never come to pass; it works from an assumption that the anxiety formed despite a lack of the expected threat. CPTSD anxiety and hypervigilance are trained by repeated exposure to the threat, forming a basis for the brain to associate situations with an outcome that has come true again and again over a long-term period.
Hypervigilance, Shrinking, Self-silencing, and all the wide array of habits and behaviors that make up the Fight-Flight-Freeze-Fawn fear response cycle need to be understood in PTSD and CPTSD not as irrational, dramatic, or as deliberate choices, but as survival behaviors that were learned in response to real threats and reinforced by the perception of escaping, ending, or minimizing the threat. A soldier with PTSD might throw themselves onto the ground at the sound of a truck backfiring because this response to the sound of an explosion once served a real survival purpose, and a CPTSD adult might monitor the body language of everyone in the room or the amount of time someone takes to respond to a question, for the exact same reason. The brain and body know, "This has kept me safe before. This works."
The CPTSD brain does not respond to affirmations or assurances that all is actually well, because it knows that the threat is real; it is structurally and chemically shaped by a threat playing out objectively and repeatedly. What calms the anxiety in CPTSD is repeated instances of the threat not coming to pass during situations associated with the fear response cycle. Being seen without being punished, being open without being silenced, and being safe without having to engage in Shrinking, Fawning, or Self-Silencing are the structural antidote to a brain formed by fear.
