I don't understand your question. You in fact were questioning the truth of his statement. Your being so kind as to not assign him improper motives does not change that. When you question whether someone is remembering something accurately, you are questioning the truthfulness of his statement. And in your case, there is absolutely no reason to do so. The op never said that, at the age of 16, he suddenly recalled for the first time this horrible thing that happened years ago. He said he was thinking over his life and was recalling that thing. Quote:Nor is it appropriate to say "report it" and see if anything "come(s) of it". That kind of knee jerk, politically correct, vacuous reaction could possibly inflict even more injury. I realize it's not the clinician's job to determine the authenticity of the memory but when they start claiming it valid enough to level uncorroborated accusations, I think, they then have taken on the mantle of responsibility for determining the indeterminable, that is whether or not the memory is authentic.And I think this is an incredibly dangerous point of view. You are basically advocating telling kids not to report abuse unless they are sure they can provide enough evidence to prove their accusation in a court of law. That is unfair. First of all, there is no way they can do that. Secondly, that is exactly the kind of attitude that scares people, children and adults, from reporting rape and abuse. I don't for the life of me see how you could consider encouraging someone to report abuse to be a "knee jerk, politically correct, vacuous reaction". I think it is an incredibly cavalier and punitive reaction to tell a kid if he can't come up with enough corroborated evidence to prove his claim, he shouldn't report sexual abuse.
-
I was raped
-
"I don't understand your question. You in fact were questioning the truth of his statement. Your being so kind as to not assign him improper motives does not change that."Come on damien, as an educated person, a therapist you should know exactly what I mean and I'm sure you do. Your trying to frame the argument to make it sound as if I say he's lying and you can therefore avoid answering any questions about the fictive nature of the mind, childhood amnesia or the reliability of the recovered memory. Secondly, motive has nothing to do with this and you know it and you also know that anyone's certainty of a statement can be questioned without questioning whether they're telling the truth. Hell, any third grader understands that.Truth is not absolute. Truth is relative to the person and the facts reside outside that. Often when a robbery takes place, say with 30 different witnesses, you'll get 30 different descriptions of the perpetrator that only have some general commonalities. When the witnesses give varying statements they are telling the truth, as they remember it. Questioning their certainty about their memory and statement does not mean their motives are being questioned. If your standards are applied to these witnesses then, do to their inaccuracies, they must be lying. I would say that your absolutism is what questions motivations.>>>"When you question whether someone is remembering something accurately, you are questioning the truthfulness of his statement."That is completely wrong and anyone should know it. However someone remembers something is the truth for that person and as I have already explained truth is relative to the individual. Questioning the certainty and accuracy of anything is just that, questioning certainty and accuracy. Questioning those things in no way implies that the claimant must be lying.>>>"He said he was thinking over his life and was recalling that thing."He said it "popped" into his head. That generally means a sudden recall. Plus the overall tone of the post seems to imply that this event was something that was recalled out of a long slumber in the subconscious, not something that has been brooded over for the last ten years. I may be wrong but it sure reads that way to me.>>>"You are basically advocating telling kids not to report abuse unless they are sure they can provide enough evidence to prove their accusation in a court of law."So you go from specificity to broad generalization. Please don't try to fashion my words as if they apply to every claim of abuse made by anyone. Again you know that is not what was meant or said and how you can generalize that out to apply to anyone is, quite honestly, a stretch.What's being dealt with here did not happen yesterday, last month or even a few years ago. It happened a decade ago while the op was still well within the age of childhood amnesia. Being a counselor, therapist or whatever you are, you should know that once a child hit's about 10 years old they have very little recollection of what happen before the age of 8 and the older they get the foggier that time period becomes. Given that what we are discussing here took place during that age I think it's entirely appropriate to approach the claim with some skepticism, mainly because of responses that say run to the authorities.>>>"...they can provide enough evidence to prove their accusation in a court of law."What do you think the authorities are going to require of 'em?>>>"That is unfair."So, if a minor makes the claim they should be automatically believed without question and without having to show any corroborating evidence. Your right that is unfair but in the opposite direction.>>>"First of all, there is no way they can do that."Wrong, the first and most simple way is to show the accused had the opportunity.>>>"Secondly, that is exactly the kind of attitude that scares people, children and adults, from reporting rape and abuse."Well damien, I'm sorry but there is a lot of scary, scary shit in life that has to be done. Just because something is hard to do and scary for someone to undertake doesn't mean that we as a society should cast aside logic and reason to make it easier for them. If they seek closure or justice or redress of the event in which they were wronged, if they want it bad enough they will persevere through that which they find frightening. I will not set reason aside so that I may abate their stress, because it is only in reason that there is any hope that justice might be found.>>>"I don't for the life of me see how you could consider encouraging someone to report abuse to be a "knee jerk, politically correct, vacuous reaction."Again, you are trying to frame the argument and make it sound as if my statement applies to any claim of abuse. If you want to know how I consider the advise to "report it" and see "what may come of it" to be knee jerk, politically correct or vacuous it is because that advice is seemingly give without consideration that the event took place ten years ago when the op was still well withing the period of childhood amnesia and seems to be a suddenly recalled memory. Given those three factor I am going to unapologetically question the accuracy of what is being remembered, with accuracy having nothing to do with the truth as it is remembered.
-
I'm not sure where to start, so maybe I shouldn't...and yet I am...First of all, we completely diverge on the matter of truth. In most respects it is not relevant. If your honest memory of the 1980 Presidential election is that Jimmy Carter won, then your memory is false and what you are remembering is simply not true, despite the fact that you genuinely believe that to be the case. I understand multiverse and all that crap. I understand differing perceptions and opinions. But I was born on July 16, 1972 regardless of how any well-meaning and "truthful" person might remember that. Of course you want to play semantics and call it "certainty" and "accuracy". Fine and well. Quote:So, if a minor makes the claim they should be automatically believed without question and without having to show any corroborating evidence.I never said he should be automatically believed without question. I did say he shouldn't have to show corroborating evidence for his claim to be taken seriously. Maybe I'm splitting hairs now, but it really is two different things. Whether you are a therapist or an investigator, it is appropriate to approach the claim from a posture of belief. I can assure you, this doesn't automatically get innocent people hurt. I was actually dealing with a case today in which a former client accused three other clients (2 former, 1 current) of sodomizing him in their foster home, and then sodomizing him again with a broomstick. This is a kid who has a history of substantiated severe sexual abuse. But I'm skeptical about his claim. However, the investigating officers have done the right thing by taking his claim seriously enough to investigate it. By doing so he is basically coming to the conclusion that the charges are either false or flashbacks projected into the kids recent future, and he is making the decision that no charges need to be filed. The kids accused of this horrible act will probably not even know they were ever accused of it. So what has happened is that the claims were taken seriously enough to begin some level of investigation, but due prudence was followed to prevent following through on unsubstantiated accusations.I love a good debate. And this really has boiled down to a sort of theoretical debate, hasn't it. And I really appreciate it. You do that well and in a way that isn't condescending or castigating. However, I have to admit that I am having at least some difficulty transferring what I am dealing with on a daily basis right now to the level of theory. And I would bet that if you could have my perspective, someone who deals with the reality of it all, you might see how some our theories don't always play out in the realities of life.Nonetheless, I appreciate your challenges.