Comments | lhynard: On Grief and What It Does Not (Necessarily) Involve

lhynard

On Grief and What It Does Not (Necessarily) Involve

May 06, 2011 11:50

Two of the most fascinating questions yet to be answered by science, in my opinion, are how developmental biology works and how the brain works. This is because they are, relatively speaking, some of the most complicated processes known.

On the other hand, while the questions asked by psychology are some of the most fascinating to me, psychology as ( Read more... )

Comments 7

I agree but would add one thing... ext_544127 May 6 2011, 16:23:24 UTC

I would agree that grief counseling is worthless in the sense of speeding up the grieving process. However, it is essential to be able to use the grief as a tool for personal growth. If anyone goes into grief counseling in order to speed up the process, they will be disappointed. And we can choose to grieve quietly, but I believe we need a proper outlet for the thoughts, feelings, and emotions that come out. Otherwise, they can express themselves negatively. The time of grief is a short window, while the wound is fresh, to heal properly. It can be compared to a physical wound, to an extent. We can take steps to help minimize infection, reduce scar tissue, etc. But the body must heal. And that takes time. (this is coming from someone who doesn't know the medical field well, so I am sure my analogy is not perfect, as none are ( ... )

Re: I agree but would add one thing... lhynard May 6 2011, 18:27:39 UTC

Actually, you added a lot of things! :)I would agree that grief counseling is worthless in the sense of speeding up the grieving process. However, it is essential to be able to use the grief as a tool for personal growth. If anyone goes into grief counseling in order to speed up the process, they will be disappointed.
Good points about using grief as a tool for growth. I think you are correct. One can well enough grieve and go on as if nothing had happened and learn nothing from it. But I'm of the opinion that that's a sad way to go through life - not learning from life experiences.I would also submit that grief is a lot like facing your own death. It is the death of a certain way of living. It is the death of expectations and ideals, which is painful. You are looking at the end of your life as you have known it.
This is why, I think, that people tried to assign the same Steps. It makes some level of sense. The problem I see is that it was all based on assumptions instead of careful studies. It was a fair enough and logical hypothesis ( ... )

Re: I agree but would add one thing... sadeyedartist May 6 2011, 22:06:06 UTC

I agree with almost everything you say here, Derek. (This is the wife of lhynard, by the way, who does not prefer to be known by name in cyberspace.) You make perfect sense when you say that the "rate" (or speed) of recovery is not the point, but rather, how well you heal. This may be why the article seemed hollow to me.

(Its also ok if you don't have perfect medicinal knowledge; lhynard is a PhD, not an MD. :)

Re: I agree but would add one thing... lhynard May 7 2011, 01:09:58 UTC

(lhynard does not have a PhD.)

Thread 5

sadeyedartist May 6 2011, 22:03:07 UTC

We probably should have talked about this.

I thought that article was the dumbest thing ever. It didn't have any real conclusions of its own; it simply stated that the other conclusions were wrong. I also was not impressed with their "findings" at all. This is not to say that the old ways are correct; but I thought that the article said a whole lot of nothing.

lhynard May 7 2011, 01:16:06 UTC

True, the article did not have much for conclusions of its own, but very often a first step in correcting errors in popular thought is simply showing its flaws. Better that she did that than to propose some other hypothesis as fact before it had been tested.

As for findings, I thought it most interesting that expression of anger seems to be detrimental to healing.

Also, her work is a review; she is not a researcher herself, only a reporter. She was reporting on the studies that are out there, not trying to justify her own work. (This is exactly what my next paper is going to be, FYI - pointing out the flaws in other's work using other's work without making much for conclusions on my own. The point is not to show the correct answer but to stop people from heading down the wrong path and therefore missing the correct answer, whatever it happens to be in the end.)