[third_I]

I'm sorry but this has to be the most un-scientific account I've read on the topic (granted, I read few), and it's incredibly misleading.

- Humans did not change biologically enough in 10,000 years, let alone 2,000, to produce a meaningfully different psychology. Take a a child born 2,000 years ago, raise them today, and you'll get just a regular human being. Same thing backwards.

- The entirety of the author's 'hypothesis' (sic) rests upon ignoring that nurture, context, is highly determinant in forming psychological references, relative perceptions, hence reactions, profiles. This is wrong, nature isn't 100%, you simply can't take two identical beings, put them in vastly different contexts and hope they present the same behaviors and perceptions. It makes no sense. Hello Darwin, wish you were here.

- “the absence of evidence”... Again, wrong. Historical psychology is a thing. Author may be well-meaning, but they should adopt a transdisciplinary approach if they are to talk about multiple disciplines at once. Find a good psychologist, work together as one on the topic long enough to form a legitimate hypotheses, then maybe make some conclusions.

- It seems the author also neglected to take into account philosophy, which used to be 99% practical back then. Recipes for good living. Guess why it was widely taught and shared, pretty much the basis of any education, throughout life. Guess why Seneca wrote his letters. What's the point of ignoring just about the closest thing to psychology sessions? Why is Stoicism not in that essay?

I feel like I've just read a mathematician trying, painfully, to speak of epidemiology. (forgive the "modern" reference, I think it's fitting as we speak)

Whatever your core expertise, armchair-other disciplines is a slippery slope. I guess the author somehow mistook his own intelligence for knowledge in psychology.

Say whatever you want about our past, you won't find a psychologist or biologist to tell you we've changed in any way, shape or form "inside". The context, however, ah, the context. Well for that, this thread on HN is much more eloquent, I must say. It's almost as if people collectively had insight! (because this is written: "/s", of course they do, and I wish the author didn't simply write solo or fail to question or quote others.

Here's food for thought: the very fact of "talking about your feelings" is very modern, that's a totally different context. We just didn't dwell on that topic as much in history (hence why, perhaps, some literature became so notorious, because it spoke of something that people weren't used to). It was "fluff". Hence why, when we made "emotions" a matter of science, it became a more acceptable topic, not just for a few who dared. It became "mainstream". (I'm NOT a specialist, so don't quote me on this but Freud, Jung, positivism, is probably where/when to look for a major shift; before that it was "magic", fluff, but it doesn't mean it wasn't "real", like belief in supernatural forces is "magic" but real to the psyche).

Imagine that, in the future, we turn some (currently) elusive aspect of our psyche (like belief indeed), into a form of science, of applied psycho-bio-model-mechanics (like we do cognitive sciences today, a scientific progress over prior centuries). Now imagine some author versed in history but oblivious to psychology and biology, centuries from now, claiming in some random short post that people in the 21st century did not experience any tension in that regard because they didn't have words for it. Well, we may not have the words indeed, not yet; but we certainly experience the tensions with beliefs (supernatural or otherwise), heck we made wars because of it. Just like kings of old have waged war because their feelings commanded them to.

That, my friend, is ethnocentricity of a temporal form (not strictly spatial as is usually the implication with that notion). At best, it's blinding Omphaloskepsis.

Edit: lovely downvotes! So, you think PTSD is a modern thing. You think human psychology has changed dramatically in a few centuries. Alright, point taken! FWIW, I've spoken with psychologists explicitly about this question, and my view is informed by their conclusions. You may wish to rethink your modern bias on biology.

[mkl]

> The entirety of the author's 'hypothesis' (sic) rests upon ignoring that nurture, context, is highly determinant in forming psychological references, relative perceptions, hence reactions, profiles.

Huh? The author's hypothesis is that nurture and context were all-important in helping people avoid PTSD.

[third_I]

And I claim, or rather parrot, that it's wrong to think that because words were not spoken or did not exist, the thing they would eventually come to designate ("PTSD") did not exist.

Romantic love is another good example. It never was spoken in modern terms before the 16th century give or take. Which is far from being equivalent to say "nope, they didn't speak of it like that, so people never experienced romantic love before the 16th century!"

The author's view is just as flawed, afaik. PTSD and every other psychological trait known in modern times did exist for much longer than recorded history, that's what most historical psychologists have concluded (it's not open to debate...), just in different terms (words), perceptions, value (in a larger hierarchy).

Edit: think of it this way. Were feelings "important" in the past? Certainly nowhere near as much as they are today, in our perception. Most were not even spoken, there simply were no words most of the time (or unknown to layman people). Did feelings exist forever, however? Absolutely, yes.

[agarden]

Your claims lack evidence. The article was all about surveying the available evidence for indications that PTSD was or was not a thing experienced by soldiers in the past at a rate similar to today. What is more, when he decides that the evidence does not support that, he suggests that the feelings experienced by soldiers have not changed, but that in ancient societies there were different mechanisms by which they were processed such that those same feelings did not produce what we call PTSD, at least not at the rate it does today.

Not only do you have no evidence or arguments (except vague claims to authority), but your claims do not even contradict the original article.

[third_I]

EDIT: please do read crazygringo's thread above, people in there have much more substance that I could in my short/quick write-up above. In particular, palimpsests' view is very close to what I've heard again and again from people with relevant experience.

___

Did I make a fool of myself by failing to comprehend what I read and then arguing exactly the same?

Then, I will just shut up and read again.

___

Somehow, a bit tangential to the topic:

About evidence or argument, appeal to authority, I do think it's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", and the author's claim is extraordinary. Mine is really just consensus from the field of historical psychology. I've never heard an expert arguing otherwise. I could probably google a few links, but randomly sticking "proof" on a non-problem seems... pointless. I shouldn't have to prove that flat geometry yields 180° triangle, it's whoever claims otherwise that bears the burden of substantiating it.

I just won't spend that particular time, since the author's claim is weird, not mine. Triangles add up to 180. Human biology and psychology did not change in recorded history. There's nothing 'new' in our heads besides what we intake from the context.

___

But I hear you and will re-read that piece later, with a colder head. Maybe I was put off by some emotional bias and got 'triggered' by the claim (no PTSD in the past... huh?), which led me to interpret, thus fail to comprehend what I read. That much is 100% possible and I've no ego problem in admitting that.

Apologies to the author if that's been the case.

[lidHanteyk]

Your own first two points are in conflict. Either humans from the past raised in today's world would be like today's humans, or like the past's humans. Pick one.

[third_I]

No, it's precisely the same idea.

Biology did not change. Perceptions and expression of it did change. It does not mean the inner biological processes are any different, just the way you consciously select what to say about them. Absence of words (context) means you cannot express certain things; does not mean you don't actually feel them. Romantic love for instance is a quite modern thing, the way we speak of it today. Does not mean people did not feel it before.

Please reconsider your take and vote, you misinterpreted my points I'm afraid. Or at least, make a worthy counter-argument, a click is simply too easy IMHO.

[lidHanteyk]

Oh, I didn't downvote you. I replied instead. I'm used to systems that punish voting and replying in the same thread. Indeed, I won't ever downvote folks like you, since I'm usually punished by that very same system. Instead, I will shove words into your ears and drag you, kicking and screaming, to reason.

I gave you a worthy counter-argument; I gave you a single-sentence dilemma which was intended to refute your entire platform. You may want to re-read Pirsig's thoughts on dilemmas [4] before you reply.

The entirety of psychology, as a theory, is based upon cultural assumptions about inner experiences. There are important arguments against the ideas that people have inner experiences [0], that people are thinking when they talk [1], that therapy is effective due to its design rather than due to being a safe place to reflect [2], and even that mental disorders exist as opposed to being part of the spectrum of the human condition [3].

If you cannot tackle these foundational issues at all times, then your arguments ought to be considered no more strongly than the original author, by your own words, since you are not a psychologist either.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanism

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Horns_of_a_dilemma

[third_I]

Oh I love that reply. Thank you for that.

Great food for thought. You do in effect widen the topic so much, the very axioms underlying my assumptions, and that's extremely valuable to me. I think I see your point, now. you took me off-guard, I wasn't expecting this direction and failed to see what you meant.

I will yield to your logic (in particular the last sentence). I may deplore that it makes the whole topic kind of moot, but that's my feelings, not an argument whatsoever (my bias shows I suppose).

Now, I will just reaffirm that I'm parroting much more expert views. Such topics are one of my pet peeves, been thinking about it quite deeply since I was 12-ish (37 now). Lots of reading over the years. Lots of discussions with 'experts'. I've no professional qualification in psychology however, that's true.

All these questions, "did we cognitively think differently?", "did we feel differently?", "were we in any way significantly different that a modern psychologist couldn't do their thing on a Classic Roman?", "have we changed so much that someone from the past would be lost in the modern world if they were raised in it?"... they all met a resounding "no".

That's what I was trying to express. Based on this unanimous, quite consensual view, how could something as "simple" and common as PTSD not exist back then? It's a really extraordinary claim, thus the burden of proof falls on the claimant, I reckon.

Whether or not we are zombies (I think we are, to a much larger extent than we'd be comfortable admitting for now), that zombie today is exactly the same as all zombies prior, and yet to come, for a long, long time (year 10,000 is too soon, 50,000 might be a low threshold unless we dramatically sped up genetic mutations and selection).

I don't have much more to say. I could probably write a short novel, but what's the point. I'm not even defending the point, just stating consensus. It is, as you correctly imply, not my place to put forward or argue such ideas with authority. But you'll have to go against the whole field of psychology to counter it (I will be eating popcorn as you drag them to reason ;-) )

Hopefully, this tempers a possibly exaggerated authority I may have suggested in my OP. I'll blame my writing style now and learn my lesson, I'll be more cautious and reasonable next time.

(I also stand corrected about the downvoting, so that's on me, my bad. Much respect for your approach, then.)

Now, I'm off reading all these nice links. Thanks again (upvoted both your posts, for a solid contribution to discussion, regardless of my opinion).