[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.