Depends on what particular "stress and adversity" from early life/ ELA from article. From what we have learnt from Spirituality and all of the wise philosophers, that sounds contradictory. Most of the teachings of philosophy point to adversity and stress as events from which we can learn from and become more stronger mentally. It's possible that always being in this state of stress can morph your worldview to always be broken, and perhaps that is what's being referenced and reflected here.
Childhood trauma like physical neglect, sexual abuse or living with a parent who suffered from mental illness does not "make us mentally stronger."
It's not about "worldview". As the parent article shows, the types of experiences create physiological changes in the brain. The changes are correlated later in life with everything from drug abuse to depression suicide attempts and cancer. A lot of this is driven by unhealthy behavior driven by the physiological changes, but some of it is directly linked in a physical sense.
I'm all for inspiring adults to learn from their hardships, but it's cruel to ever cast childhood trauma as a good thing.
I am grateful for the great thinkers of the past, and for the wisdom that can often be found there. Buddhism and Stoicism have helped folks endure horrific conditions.
But there is no virtue in experiencing pain. It is not better to reach some form of personal enlightenment by being forced to do so through adversity.
And I think this is also a different category because we're talking about childhood here. This is a period of time when a human is most vulnerable, fully dependent on those around them, and unable to even understand that the world could be different than it is. The impact into adulthood can be catastrophic, and the fact that some folks navigate this successfully via contemplative practice should be something we marvel over, not an ideal we should strive for.
I agree about there being no virtue in experiencing pain, but I think there's value in it. Neither form of personal enlightenment is inherently better, they are different experiences that lead different yet similar paths, though both provide an understanding the other cannot
I agree that there's value that can be found, but it's not the kind of value that I think most would choose to acquire if they were given a choice and understood what the experience would entail. It's a silver lining. It's like throwing a faster pitch after Tommy John surgery.
But when we're talking about childhood trauma/stress, I'd be more cautious about associating value. While value may certainly be derived by folks fortunate enough to find a path out, many don't find that path. And that path out can also leave quite a bit of damage in its wake.
What you and the article are talking about are apples and oranges.
Yet your attitude is entirely typical of most people: you seem to assume that children one year of age who are screamed at by a psychotic mother have the capacity to think about all the wise things the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius said and how best to respond to the situation, so that they can learn from it and become as sage and wise as someone like yourself.
This is simply not the case. Very young humans are literally dependent on the people around them for their survival. They are not capable of complex, abstract reasoning. When Mom screams her head off at a one-year-old baby, that baby is not able to think that maybe Mom is screaming because she has borderline personality disorder, a terrible marriage and a very demanding boss; the baby assumes he's being screamed at because he is at fault. The bodies and nervous systems of young humans assume that early life experiences are a good representation of how the world really is, that the people around us in those very formative years are good representations of how people are.
Significant early-life adversity causes lasting physical changes to the brain, as well as lasting epigenetic changes (changes in the expression of the genes) which affect many (all?) parts of the organism. If you care to learn about this, look into books by Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, Dr. Gabor Mate, the "ACE" study which I believe another commenter mentioned, as well as "Born Anxious" by Daniel P. Keating. Or, feel free to continue trotting around on your high horse, assuming the addicts and mentally ill of the world are just people with a lack of willpower and initiative. Not everyone is as blessed as you are, please remember that.
Look at adversity in real life and tell me it makes mentally stronger people.
Some people become very mentally tough, but this is a projection of physical resistance training onto your brain.
Note that basically nobody does this. Very few people decide to put themselves into adverse circumstances and fewer still do it to benefit their brain.
Anecdotal, also I admit I don't know what the exact range of adversity here is. But from all the immigrant friends I have living in the US and the ones who aren't here, a lot of them come from 'living on the street' environments from South Asia. Their attitude to life is to make it work no matter what and they are stoic. Their drive is something one would aspire to. Inability to take an action isn't an option or a natural state they can be at. I cannot help but compare them to Western born folks and see the stark difference in approaching everything to life.
> decide to put themselves into adverse circumstances
If you've knowingly put yourself there, it's much less likely to be genuinely traumatic. It's only when someone finds themselves trapped in an unexpected and undesired negative situation that real trauma manifests.
A roller-coaster ride and an auto wreck might have the same physical effect but very different psychological effects.
Most come from well to do circumstances, anywhere from Aurelius to Weil, they were birthed into apposite economic strata, with enough 'wisdom' to ameliorate themselves in childhood from extreme rending poverty, and later on with that basis formulated such austere philosophies. Name me one truly unfathomable poverty stricken philosopher, think subsaharan famine levels, especially in their formative years, and I'll list you thousands of counter examples.
I mean of course. If you have adverse childhood experiences you probably are more likely to come from a dysfunctional and poor place. You eat bad foods frequently and are around alcohol, tobacco, and drug use and more likely to become a problem user of them.
It’s also likely the genetic material being passed on to you isn’t helpful in overcoming these things when you have control of them.
Why are you deriving general statements from an article that are making specific claims about specific matters. ELA[1] as the CDC defines it, and as the article referenses back to, is "A (witnessed) traumatic event is a frightening, dangerous, or violent event that poses a threat to a (loved one)/child’s life or bodily integrity." There is no 'Depends on what particular "stress and adversity" from early life/ ELA.'
> From what we have learnt from Spirituality and all of the wise philosophers, that sounds contradictory.
Such a loaded statement. Coming from the assumption that there is anything reliable from spirituality or wise or unwise philosphers, doesn't mean that there reasons are justified truth belief, just anecdotal observations.
> Most of the teachings of philosophy point to adversity and stress as events from which we can learn from and become more stronger mentally
Can you please provide sources and not assume its common knowledge.
> It's possible that always being in this state of stress can morph your worldview to always be broken, and perhaps that is what's being referenced and reflected here.
"Possible," do you have any reasons to back up your claim?
