PTSD — Rebuttal

I was stunned when I read this article, “Should we erase painful memories?”, in Salon magazine. Which is kinda what propranolol seems to do.

The first speculative steps are now being taken in an attempt to develop techniques of what is being called “therapeutic forgetting.” Military veterans suffering from PTSD are currently serving as subjects in research projects on using propranolol to mitigate the effects of wartime trauma. Some veterans’ advocates criticize the project because they see it as a “metaphor” for how the “administration, Defense Department, and Veterans Affairs officials, not to mention many Americans, are approaching the problem of war trauma during the Iraq experience.”

The argument is that terrible combat experiences are “part of a soldier’s life” and are “embedded in our national psyche, too,” and that these treatments reflect an illegitimate wish to forget the pain suffered by war veterans. Tara McKelvey, who researched veterans’ attitudes to the research project, quoted one veteran as disapproving of the project on the grounds that “problems have to be dealt with.” This comment came from a veteran who spends time “helping other veterans deal with their ghosts, and he gives talks to high school and college students about war.” McKelvey’s informant felt that the definition of who he was “comes from remembering the pain and dealing with it — not from trying to forget it.” The assumption here is that treating the pain of war pharmacologically is equivalent to minimizing, discounting, disrespecting and ultimately setting aside altogether the sacrifices made by veterans, and by society itself. People who objected to the possibility of altering emotional memories with drugs were concerned that this amounted to avoiding one’s true problems instead of “dealing” with them. An artificial record of the individual past would by the same token contribute to a skewed collective memory of the costs of war.

WTF? Yeah, let’s remember all the violence, pain, and discomfort of being in a war. Including your getting your ass blown off!

Then I learned this same argument appeared when anesthesia came in general use.

Yet physical anesthetics have some relevant common ground with the prospective memory technologies, and there is a long history of resistance to the idea of physical anesthesia on grounds similar to some of the arguments being mounted here. Skeptics argued that a loss of sensation would disconnect sufferers from a valuable experience (as in childbirth) and from information they needed to have. Before the advent of anesthesia, techniques that seemed to involve an intentional suspension of sensation could trigger alarm on a scale that now seems almost inconceivable.

My reaction is “What a crock!” But the logic is this:

One of the most tenacious themes of 20th-century memory research was the idea that people tormented by the memories of terrible experiences could benefit from remembering them, and from remembering them better. The assumption — broadly indebted to psychoanalysis — was that psychological records of traumatic events often failed to be fully “integrated” into conscious memories. As long as these records remained “dissociated,” the sufferer was compelled to “relive” them instead of benignly remembering them. The more fully and appropriately one remembered terrible events, the more attenuated would be their emotional power.

Oh, yeah! Remembering getting your arm sawed off or the abuse a parent imparts on you is valuable. BS! I have memories I will NEVER explore. I tried it once and only got near them when terror set in. They will stay locked in the basement of my mind.

No wonder I never accepted all that crap Freud espoused. Digging up painful memories does not always heal; it can destroy.

Then there is the legal issues.

In addition to the work with veterans, there have been pilot studies with civilians in emergency rooms. In 2002, psychiatrist Roger Pitman of Harvard took a group of 31 volunteers from the emergency rooms at Massachusetts General Hospital, all people who had suffered some traumatic event, and for 10 days treated some with a placebo and the rest with propranolol [a beta blocker]. Those who received propranolol later had no stressful physical response to reminders of the original trauma, while almost half of the others did. Should those E.R. patients have been worried about the possible legal implications of taking the drug? Could one claim to be as good a witness once one’s memory had been altered by propranolol? And in a civil suit, could the defense argue that less harm had been done, since the plaintiff had avoided much of the emotional damage that an undrugged victim would have suffered? Attorneys did indeed ask about the implications for witness testimony, damages, and more generally, a devaluation of harm to victims of crime. One legal scholar framed this as a choice between protecting memory “authenticity” (a category he used with some skepticism) and “freedom of memory.” Protecting “authenticity” could not be done without sacrificing our freedom to control our own minds, including our acts of recall.

So that brings it down to retribution or forgiveness, IMO. If someone is doing OK without remembering driving into the side of a bus, that seems a better choice. Or maybe we can keep them in torment until after the trial. Dante would love this!

But the mere possibility seems to have threatened an important convention for representing memory in relation to personal identity. These worries draw their force from a deep-seated attachment to two related beliefs: first, that we are, in some ambiguous but important way, the accretion of our life experiences; and second, that those life experiences are perfectly preserved even if our ability to remember them is far from perfect. When Alzheimer’s disease patients lose significant amounts of memory, dismayed friends often say that their very selves have crumbled or faded away and that in some literal way they are “no longer themselves.”

The thought here is not that people believe their memories are perfect — far from it. Common understandings of memory centrally involve the idea that memories are unreliable, fickle and capricious. But there is another belief about memory that has been articulated by many figures in memory research: that in some fundamental way, secreted within us are perfect records of past experiences, even if we might never access them consciously.

I work with Alz patients and watched my Dad slide into his own world. Yeah, he was different but was he no longer my Dad? I didn’t think so; he just recalled things differently. As my teaching about dealing with Alz patients teaches, you don’t argue with them; their reality is REALITY. Kinda like some politicians!

But the mere possibility seems to have threatened an important convention for representing memory in relation to personal identity. These worries draw their force from a deep-seated attachment to two related beliefs: first, that we are, in some ambiguous but important way, the accretion of our life experiences; and second, that those life experiences are perfectly preserved even if our ability to remember them is far from perfect. When Alzheimer’s disease patients lose significant amounts of memory, dismayed friends often say that their very selves have crumbled or faded away and that in some literal way they are “no longer themselves.”

For instance, in the 1830s, during disputes over whether mesmerism could create an altered state of mind in which an individual was entirely incapable of sensation, the editor of a major London medical journal urged his readers to consider such a thing impossible not merely because it was implausible but because it would be an immense moral affront and a threat to one’s personal integrity. “Consider the implications,” he urged his readers: “the teeth could be pulled from one’s head without one’s knowledge.”

The thought here is not that people believe their memories are perfect — far from it. Common understandings of memory centrally involve the idea that memories are unreliable, fickle and capricious. But there is another belief about memory that has been articulated by many figures in memory research: that in some fundamental way, secreted within us are perfect records of past experiences, even if we might never access them consciously.

From the comments:

David Epstein

The concerns voiced in the article stem from a major misunderstanding of what propranolol does and what “emotional memories” are.

“Emotional memories” aren’t memories in the colloquial sense; they’re Pavlovian associations. They’re the panic felt by a battle survivor when a car backfires nearby; they’re the craving felt by an alcoholic when a champagne cork pops.

Propranolol and other reconsolidation-attenuating drugs do NOT touch narrative memories of particular experiences; they only reduce conditioned emotional responses to particular sensory stimuli. It’s a distinction that makes all the difference in the world.

—–

Aunt Messy

I think the propanolol treatment is not only valid, but may become standard over the next few years. When truly traumatic things happen to us, it’s enough to know that it happened and contend with the physical aspect of healing. Being forced to relive the experience for the rest of your life is the antithesis of mental health.

It took me years to be able to step back and look at my life without falling apart. I wasted a lot of time fighting emotional responses to past events.

Answered by kagogo

Did you think it was a complete waste of time? Don’t you think a lot of that contributed to the depth of your character today?

I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know who I would be if those past reactions never happened. Maybe I would be better. But maybe I would be more callous and less wise.

And a bluntly frank reply from Aunt Messy (Go, Messy!) with a codicil by Beans and Greens.

It was a complete and utter waste of time. I hurt people. I destroyed at least three potentially lucrative careers for myself, and I tortured myself with guilt for things that I couldn’t control.

It was twenty years of living, down the shit-hole, and for what? So I could get to a place where I can acknowledge the events without feeling the emotions? What the hell was the point, when I could potentially got to that place WITHOUT almost self-destructing in the process.

That process MADE me callous. I had to become callous to (literally) survive. You’re dreaming in Technicolor if you thing there’s value in what I (and millions of others) were forced to endure just to become a functional adult.

BeansAndGreens
Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 10:57 am

I agree, Aunt Messy. There are memories of utter tragedy I’ve witnessed that I do not need to keep. The world is filled with constant reminders of misery and suffering, gross injustice and cruel irony. Empathetic people will never lack for reasons to care, but having a loved one die miserably in one’s arms? I can easily do without such memories.

I couldn’t have said it better. Our future is worth more than hanging onto the pain of memories.

Advertisements

Advice for Men: To make women remember you, talk in a low voice

From Science Blog.

Men take note: If you want women to remember, speak to them in a low pitch voice. Then, depending on what they remember about you, they may or may not rate you as a potential mate. That’s according to a new study by David Smith and colleagues from the University of Aberdeen in the UK.

Their work shows for the first time that a low masculine voice is important for both mate choice and the accuracy of women’s memory. The research is published online in Springer’s journal, Memory & Cognition.

In a series of two experiments, Smith and colleagues show that memory in women is sensitive to male voice pitch, a cue important for mate choice because it can indicate genetic quality as well as signal behavioral traits undesirable in a long-term partner. These could include antisocial traits and lack of emotional warmth for example. In order to evaluate potential partners, women appear to rely on their memories to rapidly provide information about the attributes and past behavior of potential partners.

In the first experiment, 45 women were initially shown an image of a single object while listening to the name of the object spoken either by a high or low pitch male or female manipulated voice. They were then shown two similar but not identical versions of the object and asked to identify the one they had seen earlier. The women were also asked which voice they preferred.

In the second experiment, as well as manipulated voices, the researchers used real male and female voices to test how 46 new women rated the voices and how they scored on object memory.

In both cases, the authors found that women had a strong preference for the low pitch male voice and remembered objects more accurately when they have been introduced by the deep male voice.

Smith concludes: “Our findings demonstrate that women’s memory is enhanced with lower pitch male voices, compared with the less attractive raised pitch male voices. Our two experiments indicate for the first time that signals from the opposite-sex that are important for mate choice also affect the accuracy of women’s memory.”

Dr. Kevin Allan, who supervised the research, said, “We think this is evidence that evolution has shaped women’s ability to remember information associated with desirable men. Good memory for specific encounters with desirable men allows women to compare and evaluate men according to how they might behave in different relationship contexts, for example a long-term committed relationship versus a short-term uncommitted relationship. This would help women to pick a suitable partner, and that’s a particularly important ability to have because the costs of poor mate-choice decisions can be severe.”

Reference
Smith D et al (2011). A modulatory effect of male voice pitch on long-term memory in women: evidence of adaptation for mate choice? Memory & Cognition. DOI 10.1007/s13421-011-0136-6

Unfortunately this reminds me of a joke. 😉

Update. I had originally unsure whether the joke was appropriate but Donna said I should add it.

Two teenagers were fooling around. He was rubbing her bare belly and saying “I love you”.

She said “Lower.”

So in a deeper voice he said, “I love you.”