What Does Not Kill Us, Makes Us Stronger - Essay Example

The adage, what does not kill us makes us stronger, is very popular being known globally but unfortunately up to this time, the prevalence of scientific evidence has not adequately supported it. Nevertheless a national multi-year longitudinal research focused on the impacts of adverse and challenging life events mostly on mental health has discovered that very crucial experiences do indeed propel resilience as well as conformity; this in turn results to improved mental health and fosters well being of individuals (Prati et al. 2009). The study, “Whatever Does Not Kill Us: Cumulative Lifetime Adversity, Vulnerability and Resilience," embarked on an examination of a national sample of individuals who reported their lifetime account of adverse and crucial moments and several measures of modern mental health as well as well being.

The authors, Mark Seery, who is the senior professor of psychology at the University at Buffalo as well as senior author of the study, states that some previous research shows that exposure to adverse and crucial life experiences typically brings about negative impacts on mental health and the welfare of an individual; more adverse and crucial events predict that worse outcomes will be experienced (Splevins et al. 2011). However in this research of a national survey panel which comprised of 2,398 subjects analyzed on a habitual pattern from 2001 to the year 2004, Seery together with his friends discovered that those who were exposed to crucial events depicted better mental health and well being as opposed to individuals who had a high account of adversity or those with no account at all of adversity (Donovan 2010).

Seery mentions that they tested for quadratic relationships between lifetime adversity and a range of longitudinal measures of mental health as well as well being; not forgetting global distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, impairment of their functionality and the satisfaction of life. In addition to this, he goes on ahead, to say that with reference to prior research, based on the impact of adversity, linear impacts emerged in the results acquired; these showed that more lifetime adversity was linked to higher levels of global distress, lower satisfaction in life, impairment in functionality and lastly PTS symptoms. Alternatively, Seery adds that the results acquired brought about quadratic patterns which demonstrated a critical qualification to the outwardly simple linkage between outcomes and lifetime difficulty.

The findings depicted that an account of some difficulty in life, which was relative to both no hardship or high levels of hardship in life, showed lower global distress, higher life satisfaction, lower symptoms of PTS and finally lower impairment in functionality. This is a depiction of a stable and health mental state of an individual who is experiencing a very comforting life. In addition to that, the research team led by Seery, discovered that across the same longitudinal outcome analysis, individuals with an account of some lifetime hardship were depicted to be less negatively affected by recent adverse and challenging events as opposed to other individuals. Even though the data accumulated does not establish a basis of causation, Seery points out that the proof given is in line with the assumption that in moderation, going through difficulties in life can indeed contribute to the development and enhancement of resilience in an individual thus asserting that what really does not kill us makes us stronger (Donovan 2010).

The study by Seery and his colleagues was strongly focused on hardships in life. From their findings, there is a reason to trust that other relatively ordinary experiences should also be foster the development of resilience in an individual. With reference to this, it can thus be said that other experiences which are not necessarily challenging can contribute to an individual being resilient. More over, it is not that hardships are the only experiences that can make an individual establish a resilient character in themselves. The research brings about the proposition that carefully designed psychotherapeutic interventions may be in a position to impact resilience in a person; there is however a lot of work which needs to be executed in a bid to fully understand resilience and discern where it comes from or rather its origin. This suggestions means that by understanding the origin of resilience, it is only then that one would be certain to affirm that lifetime adversity makes people even stronger.

Further information about the adage is based on the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. He was also of the notion that what does not kill people makes them stronger instead. There is somewhat of controversy following Nietzsche's belief considering that his life was characterized by being miserable and short; it continues to echo in the American culture (Shpancer 2010). Basing information form a psychological perspective, Freud depicted suffering to be an inevitable part of life or rather nobody in life can be exempted from suffering no matter what. Hence ways have been established to try and make suffering seem less difficult and one way is by giving it transformative powers; others focus on the belief that there is an afterlife which will not be characterized by suffering, a sentiment that Freud does not support. The use of cocaine was also another way to ease pain and Freud himself was a fan but for sometime (Joseph 2012).

More proof to support the idea by Nietzsche concerns the nature of the American culture which is defined by having a background characterized by trauma and accompanied by some hopeful belief; the idea is found to be self-affirming or rather self satisfying (Shpancer 2010). The acquisition of a certain belief makes people develop an attitude of tending to view, remember and report instances and experiences that support the idea. This is what is called as confirmation bias. There is actually no consideration of any other belief or evidence which may deem the idea null and void. The American culture is therefore best explained through having certain chosen beliefs which are focus on supporting the adage by Nietzsche, who judging by his life, lived miserably. It is from this that questions arise concerning his view on life experiences which made him arrive at that phrase. The fact that he died miserably makes his adage appear to be ironical.

There is more evidence or rather reason why people have the notion that trauma is indeed transformative which is that people see variants of the traumatic process around them. For instance, bacteria that are not fully terminated by antibiotic will in turn mutate and thus become resistant to any more antibiotics. Relating this to individuals, it is held that individuals who go through the difficulty of training tend to improve their general performance. However, human beings are not bacteria and a good training exercise cannot be categorized as a traumatic experience.

It is now clear that in somewhat of an evolutionary sense, those people who survive a calamity are defined as being the fittest. This definition does not assert that it is calamity that made them so. In the minds of many, there is unreliable judgment that people are strong because they have survived a calamity; it may have been and it is possible that they were strong people even before. Thus being strong is not dependent on one surviving a lifetime adversity. People should know that there are naturally strong individuals and that emerging from calamities is not what makes them strong.

The brain is considered to be a tool which gives meaning to things as it is designed to arrange vast and sensory information into an orderly and logical perception which in turn is primarily organized in a narrative form. For instance something happens then leads to something else which then brings about a certain ending to the pattern (Gunty et al. 2011). When there is an occurrence of two things at the same time, there is an assumption that there is some meaningful linkage in them. The inclination to deduce causality from co-occurrence is not restricted to human beings only; pigeons in a cage receiving food at random intervals which is not associated with their behavior, will nonetheless exhibit a repeated movement which they happened to be doing earlier before there was any sign of food. Superstition is what describes the behavior of the pigeons.

Human beings are known to b superstitious as well and many common beliefs are supported by or based on this error as it is deemed. Some of the superstitions are insignificant and unrealistic for instance, like a fan's belief that putting on their lucky cloth, shoes, jersey or cap will dictate a win for their team (Dekel et al. 2012). Since parenting behaviors co-occur with the developing personalities of children, many parents tend to believe that their behaviors are responsible for molding their children's personalities (Hefferon et al. 2008). However evidenced derived from a developmental research depicts that they do not have any effect. Causality, in such a circumstance, is reversed whereby naturally soft and easy children allow for their parents to feel competent. Whereas it is that, good children foster the existence of good parents.

Human beings are eager to ease or relieve pain caused by suffering through rationalizing it. This is also supported by being inclined towards the tendency to look for any information which could be supportive of the pre-existing beliefs and in turn view meaning and causality as being in co-occurrence; all this assist in explaining how beliefs are arrived at. However, psychological research on the topic shows that, if one is stronger after a lifetime adversity, then it is a probability that the same can be but not because of difficulty. Hence what Nietzsche was trying to put across was that human beings are not stronger when in difficulties and thus what does not kill us without a doubt makes us weaker (Calhoun & Tedeschi 2006). Evidence derived from a developmental research shows that traumatized children, are at a greater risk of being traumatized again in future. Children who happen to grow up in a rather tough neighbourhood tend to become weaker but not stronger. They are more likely to experience difficulties in t he world.

The effect on adults is also similar as that on children. For instance, in a study, healthy adults were asked to look at fearful and calm faces while at the same time undergoing an operational magnetic resonance imaging. The aim was to determine the activity in the amygdale which is the part of the human brain that creates and acts as a storage compartment for emotional memories. Half of those participating were at a distance of 1.5miles from the World Trade Centre on 9/11. The other group dwelled at a distance of 200 miles away. Those who live near the World Trade Centre on 9/11 exhibited significantly higher amygdale processes when viewing the fearful faces as compared to the other group (Butler et al. 2005). Dr. Barbara Ganzel said that the findings suggested that there were possibly long term neurobiological correlates of exposure to trauma even in individuals who appear to be resilient (Albraido-Lanza 1998). It has been known for quite a long time that exposure to traumatic experiences can lead to successive vulnerability to mental health disorders some few years after the experience. Ganzel's research is aimed at informing people that hardships do not boost one's resilience but rather they increase one's vulnerability.

In an interview, an army man narrated his experiences while on mandatory service in Israel. The soldier whose work was to deal with the K9 unit says that dogs that are well taken care of, protected and loved for all of their lives are the ones that make the best anti-terrorist dog candidates (Helgeson, Reynolds & Tomich, 2006). This is after disregarding a belief held by most people that wild street dogs are the fiercest due to the living condition and environment that they have grown up in. the truth is however contrary to the belief; street dogs have no use as they lack training and are unpredictable (Weiss & Berger 2010). In the same way so do humans operate; hardships and chaos do not make an individual stronger at all and they also do not prepare one properly to deal with the terrors that are found in this world. Human beings need to be loved and cared for in order for them to be resilient because they in turn nurture and strengthen their capability to learn and conform; they also learn how to fight and how to face hardships later in life. Hence what does not kill one most definitely makes them weaker.

Reference

Abraido-Lanza, A.F. Guier, C. & Colon, R.M. (1998). Psychological thriving among Latinas with chronic illness. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 405–424. American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd edn). Washington, DC: Author.

Butler, L.D., Blasey, C.M., Garlan, R.W. et al. (2005). Posttraumatic growth following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001: Cognitive, coping and trauma symptom predictors in an internet convenience sample. Traumatology, 11, 247–267.

Calhoun, L.G. &Tedeschi, R.G. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dekel, S., Ein-Dor, T. & Solomon, Z. (2012). Posttraumatic growth and posttraumatic distress: A longitudinal study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 4, 94–101.

Donovan P., (2010), Study Confirms: Whatever Doesn't Kill Us Can Make Us Stronger, Retrieved from http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11868.html

Gunty, A.L., Frazier, P.A., Tennen, H. et al. (2011).Moderators of the relation between perceived and actual posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 61–66.

Hefferon, K., Grealy, M. & Mutrie, N. (2008). The perceived influence of an exercise class intervention on the process and outcomes of posttraumatic growth. Journal of Mental Health and Physical Activity, 1, 32–39.

Helgeson, V.S., Reynolds., K.A. & Tomich, P.L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 797–816.

Joseph, S. (2012). What doesn’t kill us: The new psychology of posttraumatic growth. London: Piatkus Little Brown.

Prati, G. & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and coping strategies as factors contributing to posttraumatic growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14, 364–388.

Malouff, J. M. (2009), Antecedent-focused emotion regulation, response modulation and well-being Current Psychology, (28) 21-32.

Shpancer N., (2010), What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Weaker, Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201008/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-weaker

Splevins, K.A., Cohen, K., Joseph, S. et al. (2011). Vicarious posttraumatic growth among interpreters. Qualitative Health Research 20, 1705–1716.

Weiss, T. & Berger, R. (Eds.) (2010). Posttraumatic growth and culturally competent practice: Lessons learned from around the globe. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.