Recent comments in /f/science

Daddyssillypuppy t1_ja2iq78 wrote

The 9 ACEs included are just the most common occurring adverse childhood experiences that they studied. It's very common to witness your mum being abused versus having a sibling die after prolonged medical care.

The ACE list is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the bad things that happen in childhood that cause issues later in life. Just the 9 most common ones amongst the study participants.

2

bisforbenis t1_ja2cjzt wrote

I think ACE stuff really is chosen because it’s stuff backed by published research and encompasses more common occurrences

I think it holds value in that it paints a clear, simple picture that childhood trauma directly links to a lot of measurable health or social problems that maybe otherwise people would be unlikely to relate to childhood trauma

I agree it would be nice to include more things in it, and perhaps that will happen eventually. I feel it’s especially odd how it specifies someone at least 5 years older for sexual abuse, I’m sure there’s a reason for that that I’m missing, but it’s an odd limitation.

As for omitting health problems, I’d suspect it’s due to that being a different type of trauma than some other things, as it’s not really relational trauma while all the other stuff is, which while trauma in itself, maybe makes sense to consider separately and just study that one on its own. Loss of a family member perhaps is the same way, worthy of looking into how it impacts people of course, but perhaps not something you want to lump in with other relational trauma. I’d argue that a lot of ACE stuff focuses on some kind of betrayal of trust, where you counted on someone close to you for love and stability and they betrayed it, likely leading to a lot of problems trusting others or letting others get close in a way these things don’t. It’s not that these things are any less traumatic, but they aren’t things that drive home a “I can’t trust other people not to harm me” message like all the ACE stuff does

6

Kyanche t1_ja2cbjf wrote

> Of course, with all of the reddit discussions and YouTube "documentaries" about how automation and AI are coming for "low-skilled" work (that actually requires a lot of skill, but is called that so they can be paid less), it's funny that the jobs that AIs are disrupting are mostly art, music, and writing.

I despise the term "low skill" because it's so disrespectful, and completely tone deaf from a business perspective. It's like saying "there's nothing we can learn from people who work in that role" except people in these roles are almost ALWAYS the people with the feet on the ground who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BEST.

You can almost always tell a well-run organization and a badly run one just by this alone.

2

SilverMedal4Life t1_ja26yyu wrote

I imagine it's because the research isn't there for it. It makes intuitive sense that losing siblings and seeing the trauma of those close to you would cause long-lasting traumatic effects, but there's a standard of scientific rigor that's gotta be kept for this type of psychological research - family court cases might come down to ACE scores, and so the research has got to be robust.

12

SilverMedal4Life t1_ja26evf wrote

You'd think, but there are a lot of people out there who think that people who can't stop eating are simply gluttons with weak willpower and a lack of self-control.

Research like this helps to disprove it and guide both policy and treatment for people who have disordered eating - which is almost certainly more than half of Americans, given that 3/4ths of Americans are overweight or obese.

42