4 Responses to PTSD Claims – maxxpayne

1. davidbdale says:

   October 8, 2023 at 10:04 am

   MaxxPayne, I’m generally very impressed with the work you’re presenting here, but, since your classmates may be observing what we say here (and rightly!), I want to know whether the claims are Direct Quotes.

   If they ARE, I’ll know that what you say you’re evaluating are verbatim from the text.

   If they AREN’T, I’ll have to factor in that you’ve already made edits, by altering or even selecting a fragment of the entire text.

   Reply
   • maxxpayne says:

     October 8, 2023 at 6:27 pm

     Professor I have directly quoted the claims and then made an analysis on each of them. I thought that as the best approach to keep track of each of my claims and analyze them accordingly.

     Reply
2. davidbdale says:

   October 8, 2023 at 10:08 am

   Let’s look at the claims:

   Claim: Brannan and Katie’s teacher have conferenced about Katie’s behavior many times.
   – Analysis: This claim suggests that there have been ongoing concerns about Katie’s behavior, leading to discussions between Brannan, Katie’s teacher, and possibly other school staff. It implies that Katie’s behavior is a matter of concern and has been addressed through communication with the school.

   —So, you’d call the claim Attributive since it places responsibility for the truth of the claim with Brannan? I guess it’s also a Causal Claim since it suggests that a student’s behavior would trigger a conference? Perhaps a stretch, but does it make an Ethical Claim by suggesting that “non-compliant” behavior SHOULD trigger a conference?

   Claim: Brannan’s not surprised she’s picked up overreacting and yelling—you don’t have to be at the Vines residence for too long to hear Caleb hollering from his room.
   – Analysis: This claim implies a causal relationship between Caleb’s behavior (overreacting and yelling) and Katie’s behavior. It suggests that Katie may have learned these behaviors from her father, Caleb.

   —It definitely does what you say, but it also indicates that Brannan “buys into” this causal relationship. Does the sentence in any way indicate that McClellan concurs?

   Claim: “She mirrors…she just mirrors” her dad’s behavior, Brannan says.
   – Analysis: This claim reinforces the idea that Katie’s behavior mirrors that of her father, Caleb. It presents a direct observation from Brannan about how Katie imitates her father’s behavior.

   —That’s interesting! If “mirrors” means “Imitates,” it’s MUCH more deliberate than I thought.

   Claim: She can’t get Katie to stop picking at the sores on her legs, sores she digs into her own skin with anxious little fingers.
   – Analysis: This claim highlights a specific behavior exhibited by Katie, namely, picking at sores on her legs. It suggests that this behavior may be a manifestation of anxiety or distress in Katie.

   —I get it. It also wants to confirm that the sores are CAUSED by another set of circumstances, right?

   Claim: She is not, according to Brannan, “a normal, carefree six-year-old.”
   – Analysis: This claim characterizes Katie as not fitting the typical profile of a carefree six-year-old. It implies that her behavior and experiences have led her to deviate from what is considered a typical childhood.

   —Is it, therefore, Categorical in that it claims Katie DOES NOT MEET the criteria for the “carefree 6-year-old category”?

   Claim: Different studies of the children of American World War II, Korea, and Vietnam vets with PTSD have turned up different results.
   – Analysis: This claim introduces the topic of various studies on the children of veterans with PTSD and suggests that there is a range of findings in these studies.

   —Is it therefore Evaluative? Comparative?

   Claim: Other studies have found a “higher rate of psychiatric treatment”; “more dysfunctional social and emotional behavior”; “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships.”

   
   – Analysis: This claim summarizes some of the negative outcomes reported in studies on the children of veterans with PTSD. It indicates that these children may experience psychiatric issues, social and emotional difficulties, and challenges in forming and maintaining friendships.

   —What are “negative outcomes”? Are they conclusions that provide zero evidence? Or conclusions that suggest outcomes that deviate from the hypothesis?

   Claim: The symptoms were similar to what those researchers had seen before, in perhaps the most analyzed and important population in the field of secondary traumatization: the children of Holocaust survivors.
   – Analysis: This claim draws a parallel between the symptoms observed in the children of veterans with PTSD and the well-documented effects observed in the children of Holocaust survivors. It suggests a potential link between trauma exposure in different populations.

   —So . . . Analogous because of the similarity? Or Causal because . . . H survivors fared similarly?

   Claim: In 2003, a team of Dutch and Israeli researchers meta-analyzed 31 of the papers on Holocaust survivors’ families, and concluded—to the fury of some clinicians—that when more rigorous controls were applied, there was no evidence for the intergenerational transmission of trauma.
   – Analysis: This claim highlights the findings of a meta-analysis conducted by Dutch and Israeli researchers, which challenged the previously assumed intergenerational transmission of trauma among Holocaust survivors’ families. It mentions the controversy generated by these findings.

   —Sure. But why? And why here? Does it conclude that no generation can inflict trauma on the next? Or, maybe, that it inflicts no syndrome except by inflicting new trauma?

   Claim: Suppose that there is a second-generation effect in veterans, there are a few differences that are quite significant… Holocaust survivors “had more resources and networks, wider family members and community to support them to adapt to their new circumstances after a war.” They were not, in other words, expected to man up and get over it.
   – Analysis: This claim introduces the idea that differences in resources and support networks between veterans and Holocaust survivors may explain variations in the observed intergenerational effects of trauma. It suggests that societal expectations and support systems play a role in coping with trauma.

   —Your very general language almost seems to deliberately obscure that the author is making a comparison that does not favor the present-day LACK of adequate support for the suffering veterans.

   Reply
3. davidbdale says:

   November 3, 2023 at 12:29 pm

   Already good enough for a fine grade, the only way these could be improved with ease would be to call out the claims types by name, as in:

   Claim: Brannan and Katie’s teacher have conferenced about Katie’s behavior many times.
   – Analysis: This ATTRIBUTIVE claim THAT THE AUTHOR HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED suggests that there have been ongoing concerns about Katie’s behavior, followed by the CAUSAL CLAIM that the concerns have led to discussions between Brannan, Katie’s teacher, and possibly other school staff. It implies that Katie’s behavior BELONGS TO THE CATEGORY “matter of concern” that would be CAUSALLY addressed through communication with the school.

   Or you could break out the claims as Attributive, Causal, Categorical, and Causal again, without trying to write them all into a paragraph.

   But that may well be more work than it’s worth. Grade already pretty impressive.

   Provisionally graded. Revisions are always encouraged and Regrades are always possible. Put the post into Feedback Please if you elect to revise.

   Reply