It’s a delicate subject to discuss, to say the least. There has been some tangential research in this area, but most researchers want to avoid the perception of questioning anyone’s response to or definition of trauma.
We do know that the language used to describe a situation can have profound effects on the perceived severity. There is a famous study in which subjects were shown footage of cars crashing into each other and asked to estimate the speed of the collision. It turns out that the way the collision is described has a significant effect on the estimate of the speed. For example, asking someone how fast the cars “smashed” into each other results in more severe estimates than if you ask how fast the cars “collided”. There has been extrapolation to suggest that merely reframing events as traumas is enough to amplify their severity, which could unfortunately create unhelpful negative feedback loops when others are merely trying to help.
There is also a trend toward younger generations feeling that their lives are more due to fate or random chance than their own actions. Reframing outcomes as traumas inherently shifts the outcome to something that is inflicted upon us. Is it possible that prior to your friends’ reframing of those events you viewed the outcomes more as your own successful navigation out of (obviously terrible) random events? Reframing events as traumas can shift the perspective to one of being a helpless victim rather than an active navigator.
>There is also a trend toward younger generations feeling that their lives are more due to fate or random chance than their own actions.
Or earlier generations believing it was ordained by God? I'd say there is definitely a massive cultural away from "it's God's will", which I hope leads to higher independence: its a shame to think randomness means no agency.
We do know that the language used to describe a situation can have profound effects on the perceived severity. There is a famous study in which subjects were shown footage of cars crashing into each other and asked to estimate the speed of the collision. It turns out that the way the collision is described has a significant effect on the estimate of the speed. For example, asking someone how fast the cars “smashed” into each other results in more severe estimates than if you ask how fast the cars “collided”. There has been extrapolation to suggest that merely reframing events as traumas is enough to amplify their severity, which could unfortunately create unhelpful negative feedback loops when others are merely trying to help.
There is also a trend toward younger generations feeling that their lives are more due to fate or random chance than their own actions. Reframing outcomes as traumas inherently shifts the outcome to something that is inflicted upon us. Is it possible that prior to your friends’ reframing of those events you viewed the outcomes more as your own successful navigation out of (obviously terrible) random events? Reframing events as traumas can shift the perspective to one of being a helpless victim rather than an active navigator.