WEBVTT - George Bonanno || The New Science of Resilience 0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.720 Today we have George Bonano on the podcast. Doctor Banana 0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.599 is Professor of Psychology, chair of the Department of Counseling 0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:23.200 and Clinical Psychology, and director of the Lost Trauma and 0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:26.920 Emotion Lab at Teachers College, Columbia University. He's the author 0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:30.600 of the Other Side of Sadness and The End of Trauma. George, 0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:33.000 so great to finally chat with you on the Psychology Podcast. 0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:35.400 It's great. So I'm very very happy to be here. 0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:39.159 I'm happy to you invited me. Thank you. You know, 0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:41.800 we have a lot to talk about in this topic 0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:46.559 that you study is extraordinarily German to the moment that 0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:48.559 we will live in. It's interesting because I think that 0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:51.160 if I read your book correctly, you said you started 0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:54.440 writing it before the pandemic hit, so you almost had 0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:56.560 to kind of add that extra chapter at the end 0:00:56.560 --> 0:01:00.360 about the pandemic. Is that right? How did that come about? Yeah, Well, 0:01:00.600 --> 0:01:04.160 I was working on the book and I planned to 0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:08.039 be in Europe for sabbatical and touring around Europe and 0:01:08.080 --> 0:01:10.840 giving lectures and working on the book further. So I 0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:12.760 started the book and I was going to do the 0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:15.800 you know, do the bulk of it, and then the 0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:18.880 pandemic hit and I had the shuffle on home right quickly. 0:01:19.600 --> 0:01:22.039 So I thought, okay, this would probably would probably make 0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:25.160 sense to include this whole experience in the book. As 0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:27.440 as it began to become clear that it was going 0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:31.000 to be a long haul, so I began keeping a diary. 0:01:31.120 --> 0:01:34.119 And that was a fortunate decision because then the last 0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:37.600 chapter of the book is about the pandemic. Yeah. Yeah, 0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:41.480 it's good that you kept a diary. Right. Well, before 0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:44.840 we get into your seminal work on resilience and the 0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:46.720 latest idea is in your new book, let's go back 0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:52.200 a second because we both shared a mentor, Jeromo Singer. Yes, yes, 0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:55.680 so you know, may he rest in peace. Let's talk 0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:58.360 about that work you did with him a little bit 0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:00.880 and how how did it lead to work and interest 0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:05.880 in resilience. Well, well that's a very interesting question. How 0:02:05.920 --> 0:02:09.359 to go from daydreaming? Yeah, well I didn't do daydreaming 0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:15.320 work with Jerry. I worked on really personality and experimental 0:02:16.400 --> 0:02:18.880 but there is a connection. I worked on personality and 0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:24.880 experimental psychology with Jerry, and my dissertation was actually a 0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:29.880 very set of studies on it's called dichotic listing the 0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:34.040 different inputs into each air and it was very intense 0:02:34.120 --> 0:02:37.240 experimental I was in the lab a lot, creating stimuli, 0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:41.000 you know. And by the end of that experience, I decided, 0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:42.920 and this is how it led me to what I 0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:47.920 do now. I decided I wanted to switch directions. And 0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:50.320 I had a chance to go to England at Cambridge 0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:52.920 and do some further experimental work, and I decided no, 0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:57.200 I wanted to get closer to what to really my 0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:01.760 clinical training into a more applied areas. And then I 0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:05.320 had an offer from Marty Horowitz, who was one of 0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:09.360 the original founders of the whole idea of trauma out 0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:14.680 in San Francisco, and it was introduced to Marty through Jerry, 0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:19.120 through Jerry's singer, and so I knew Marty through Jerry. 0:03:19.160 --> 0:03:22.320 So Marty, Marty Horowitz offered me this position out in 0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:26.760 San Francisco, a very nice position, and he was conducting 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:31.400 bereavement work out there, and he was asked if I 0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:34.200 would basically come out and run this study that he 0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:36.880 was doing, this new study, I'd be the kind of 0:03:37.200 --> 0:03:40.680 organizer of it, and I was. I was a little 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.680 confused by all that because I was really not interested 0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:46.720 in bereavement. I didn't really know much about it. But 0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:49.640 this is where the work I did with Jerry really 0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:53.480 came to the fore. Jerry always used to say, where's 0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:58.120 the data, and that really was emblazoned in my mind. 0:03:58.880 --> 0:04:01.800 And when I began to look into brem of literature, 0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:05.360 I found myself saying, where is the data for these assumptions? 0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:09.320 A lot of assumptions about prevent didn't make sense to me, 0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:11.520 and as far as I could tell, they had no 0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:15.040 empirical basis. So when I took the position in San 0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:19.400 Francisco and began to develop this study, and we had 0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:21.599 a big team, and we had was well funded, so 0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:23.680 it was really kind of fun to try to work 0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.080 it out. So we just you know, the more I 0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:28.080 looked at the literature, I thought, there's so much I 0:04:28.120 --> 0:04:32.640 can do here and test these ideas, test really what 0:04:32.720 --> 0:04:35.320 the rest of psychology was doing with the methods I 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:38.560 knew about, And that started the whole thing. Because we 0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:44.400 designed this logitudinal study, we got a broad sample, you know, 0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:47.800 pretty much everybody, anybody who lost a loved one. It 0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:51.080 wasn't just limited to people seeking help or a clinical sample. 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:56.360 And right away we found abundant resilience. We didn't use 0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.280 that word yet, but we you know, and but we 0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:02.520 saw and we you know, we didn't know what quick 0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:04.800 to make of it, and we were very I think 0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:08.239 I was a little reluctant about where we would publish 0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.719 this and how it would be responded to. But we 0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:13.960 were able to publish this work in some of the 0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:17.760 top journals in mainstream psychology. We continue to do that 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:20.800 work and eventually, I, you know, shifted over to doing 0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:23.400 trauma work more broadly. But it really all came from 0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.840 this whole idea that I learned from Jerry Singer. Where's 0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:29.680 the data? That is so cool? You know, I never 0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:31.400 heard that story before. So I'm going to ask you 0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:34.520 that question, and it's it's nice to think that Jerry 0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:38.400 played a helping hand in this seminal resilience research. I 0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:41.280 never even knew that, you know, you contribute to it. 0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.279 So I do want to ask, you know, why is 0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:49.760 the conventional wisdom about trauma so wrong? That's a great question, 0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:53.280 I think it. I think there's at least three sources 0:05:54.360 --> 0:05:56.680 that led us to somewhat astray. I mean, there was 0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:59.760 you know, trauma has a really curious history. There was 0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:04.559 hard any mention of trauma in historical record until really 0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:08.160 the nineteenth century, which is very interesting. But then once 0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:11.640 it really once it kind of began to take hold, 0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:15.159 then it really became a crucial issue in a very 0:06:16.720 --> 0:06:20.120 i'd say quatroversial and you know, tension field issue until 0:06:20.240 --> 0:06:24.360 nineteen eighty when the diagnosis was first the PTSD diagnosis 0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:27.320 was first formalized, and then it really took on a 0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:29.120 life of its own. And I think one of the 0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:31.440 main factors that we sort of got on the wrong 0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:35.640 foot was that a lot of the research and certainly 0:06:35.720 --> 0:06:38.360 a lot of the writing about trauma came from a 0:06:38.360 --> 0:06:43.600 clinical perspective. So people who worked with trauma patients, researchers 0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:47.720 who worked with severe trauma and PTSD, there was a 0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:52.120 lot of interest in understanding and treating PTSD, which makes 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:55.040 perfect sense, but that led to a kind of a 0:06:55.040 --> 0:06:59.760 skewed view. When people work with PTSD, they begin to 0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:02.880 think that everybody must be traumatized because that's what they see. 0:07:02.920 --> 0:07:05.440 They don't see resilient people, they don't see people who 0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:10.080 have gone through a potentially traumatic event and you know, basically, 0:07:10.400 --> 0:07:13.040 you know, been okay, they don't see those people. So 0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:19.080 the news from that area was that PTSD is really prevalent, 0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:23.160 and it's this difficult and tractable problem, which eventually that 0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:26.680 that work paid off and that good treatments were developed 0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:30.120 for PTSD. But that news sort of trickled out into 0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:33.840 the general public. Trauma is really a PTSD is a 0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:37.240 common response, very common response. And of course the media 0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:40.320 played its role. It's a good story, right, and so 0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:43.160 that was the kind of a story that made its 0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:46.320 way into the public. And I think so the second 0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:49.240 factor is the media, and I think the third factor 0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:53.800 is that human beings we want a simple story, you know, 0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:56.560 we don't want a complicated story. We want it. You 0:07:56.640 --> 0:07:58.600 see this now with the Internet, we want memes and 0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:01.960 sound bites. So these three things conspired, I think to 0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:07.800 the idea that trauma leads to PTSD, that these you know, 0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:12.280 the really undesirable, even horrific things people go to, are 0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:15.560 going to cause PTSD in a lot of people. Yeah. 0:08:15.600 --> 0:08:19.120 I mean, you say in your book that PTSD was invented, 0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:22.120 and you go through the whole history of that and 0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:25.880 you say, quote, the PTSD diagnosis, with its various subcategories, 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:29.760 is one of the most complicated and heterogeneous diagnoses out there. 0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:33.520 Can you explain to the general audience what that means. Yeah. Sure, 0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:36.959 there's a lot of jargon in there. Yeah. So the 0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:42.960 PTSD diagnosis has had originally three sub components. First, you 0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:45.920 have to have the there's an a criterion you have 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.520 to qualify as having a potentially traumatic event or traumatic event. 0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:52.520 And that criterion has been a bit of a Pandora's 0:08:52.559 --> 0:09:00.839 box because it started out fairly prescribed boundaries of really 0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:04.800 something outside the range of normal human experience, something really unusual, 0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:11.720 really difficult. But then as people began to say, well 0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:14.320 we have clinicians began to say, well, we have patients 0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:17.600 who clearly have PTSD, but they don't have one of 0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:21.520 these events, so we need a broader criteria, and that 0:09:21.920 --> 0:09:25.920 the definition of that a criteria began to expand, which 0:09:26.000 --> 0:09:28.839 was a bit of a Pandora's box because it's now 0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:31.240 clear now we have this ambiguity about what is and 0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:34.640 what is not a traumatic event. After you get over 0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:37.560 that hurdle, then there are three subcategories, and it's a 0:09:37.600 --> 0:09:40.640 bit of a menu driven approach. You need one of these, 0:09:40.679 --> 0:09:42.959 and three of these and two of these, etc. From 0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:47.240 these different categories, and that leads to a kind of 0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:51.760 almost impossible number of combinations of possible symptoms, so that 0:09:52.120 --> 0:09:54.840 one person may get the diagnosis to have these cluster 0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.720 as long as they meet those criteria, and another person 0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:01.800 may have these cluster, and you can really have hundreds 0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:06.000 of thousands of these different combinations. So it looks like, 0:10:06.080 --> 0:10:09.160 you know, too many people can have the PTSD diagnosis 0:10:09.160 --> 0:10:12.720 and have very different profiles. That got even worse with 0:10:12.880 --> 0:10:17.880 the latest incarnation of the DSM. The basically the Bible 0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:22.000 of Mental disorders that the American Psychiatric Association puts up 0:10:22.520 --> 0:10:26.560 the DSM made it created another sub categories. Now there's four, 0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:30.600 which increased the number of possible variations. So that's a 0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:33.880 that's a real problem because you have too much heterogeneity 0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:37.920 simply means too many different variations. Yeah, that's for sure. 0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:44.800 And you found that that resiliency is not necessarily the 0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:50.080 opposite of psychopathology, Yes, right. I think that's interesting because 0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:53.120 some people kind of may view them as oppositans of 0:10:53.160 --> 0:10:55.320 the same pool. And so I'd like you to explain 0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:58.280 that and also explain, you know, how resilience can come 0:10:58.280 --> 0:11:04.720 across and sudden, unexpected ways. Well, so the idea that 0:11:04.760 --> 0:11:08.920 resilience is not necessarily the opposite of psychopathology PTSD. In 0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:11.680 the work that I've done for the last twenty five years, 0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:15.000 we follow people over time and we use we use 0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:17.400 do my own data and other data we can get 0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:21.600 our hands on, and we look for patterns over time, 0:11:21.720 --> 0:11:24.800 and we find that there's a handful of these typical patterns. 0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:30.160 One of them is chronic psychopathology. What I like about 0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:33.640 that is defining as a trajectory is we don't need 0:11:33.679 --> 0:11:37.760 the PTSD diagnosis and the PTSD diagnoses as many flaws, 0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:41.520 So we have this diet. We can identify a pattern 0:11:42.000 --> 0:11:45.040 of chronic psychopathology that's really just a trend in the data, 0:11:45.120 --> 0:11:49.839 irrespective of the diagnosis. Then we identify a pattern of resilience, 0:11:49.880 --> 0:11:52.320 which is really we call it a stable trajectory of 0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:56.000 healthy functioning. We find that the majority of people, typically 0:11:56.600 --> 0:12:01.840 after a potentially traumatic event, they are able to basically 0:12:01.880 --> 0:12:04.160 get on with their lives and function pretty well with 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.720 alcohol lot of symptoms. They're able to have positive experiences, 0:12:08.000 --> 0:12:11.280 you know, be close to other people, you know, work 0:12:11.360 --> 0:12:14.840 and concentrate and have joy in their lives pretty soon 0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.880 after the event. Except it varies, but sometimes it's a 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:21.200 few days afterwards. Sometimes it's a few weeks afterwards, even 0:12:21.200 --> 0:12:23.560 though they were pretty shaken at the time, they were 0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:27.160 able to dust themselves off as a decent metaphorm move on. 0:12:27.640 --> 0:12:29.720 But those are not the only two patterns. We also 0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:33.040 find some people who have a lot of trauma symptoms 0:12:33.040 --> 0:12:36.400 early on and they struggle sometimes for months, and then 0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:40.000 they gradually begin to get better. It might take them 0:12:40.000 --> 0:12:42.600 a year or two lease find that pattern. Then we 0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:47.200 find another pattern where people maybe have a fair amount 0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:50.679 of PPIs D symptoms or other symptoms and they're struggling, 0:12:50.920 --> 0:12:53.280 but then they're not getting better, and they sometimes get 0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:56.520 worse over time. That can be caused by any number 0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:59.959 of things like maybe there's an injury that doesn't get better, 0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:02.959 or maybe they get depressed about the fact that they 0:13:03.880 --> 0:13:06.959 are not getting better, or reasons that we just don't 0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:09.719 know yet. And so those are all different patterns, and 0:13:10.040 --> 0:13:12.080 the only one of those patterns that maps on the 0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:14.920 PTSD is the chronic trajectory. So there's a lot going on, 0:13:15.640 --> 0:13:18.360 and it simplifies it too much to say there's just 0:13:18.880 --> 0:13:22.160 one or the other. Yeah, and most importantly you say 0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:26.040 quote in almost every analysis, the resilience trajectory was the 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:31.480 most common pattern observed. That's groundbreaking. I mean, that's groundbreaking, yes, 0:13:31.960 --> 0:13:34.160 and we've been breaking that ground. I mean I like 0:13:34.200 --> 0:13:36.600 to think it's groundbreaking. I don't know if everybody thinks that. 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:40.800 But we've been showing this now for about twenty Thanks Scott, 0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:44.920 we've been we've been showing this for about twenty five years, 0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:47.880 and it has gotten a lot of traction within the profession, 0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:51.360 and you know, it's really been sort of I think 0:13:51.400 --> 0:13:54.120 at this point it's almost irrefutable. We've just shown this 0:13:54.200 --> 0:13:57.400 so many times. And one of the studies we did, 0:13:57.200 --> 0:14:00.520 we reviewed all the studies. I think we've we've you 0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:03.640 sixty seven different analyzes that showed the same thing and 0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.840 all kinds of different events, and the mean across those 0:14:07.840 --> 0:14:10.959 events was about two thirds. So about two thirds of 0:14:11.040 --> 0:14:15.200 the people in all those different studies showed this resilience pattern. 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:18.120 It is really the norm, the norm, that the most 0:14:18.160 --> 0:14:23.320 common pattern. That's really, yeah, really important to know with that. Now, 0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:26.320 your work predates the work in the field of post 0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:29.120 traumatic growth. I noticed that you don't talk about the 0:14:29.120 --> 0:14:32.040 post traumatic growth research too much in your new book. 0:14:32.600 --> 0:14:35.720 I'm actually just having Richard Tedesky on the podcast on 0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:39.200 Monday so it'd be nice for him to follow your episode. 0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:43.440 Yeah yeah, And so can you just tell me what 0:14:43.480 --> 0:14:45.880 you think of the post traumatic growth literature? Be honest 0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.720 and tell me, you know, like I mean, in a way, 0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:51.280 aren't you kind of like one of the founders of 0:14:51.320 --> 0:14:54.479 the field inadvertently, Like I know that you don't explicitly 0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:56.840 work in that, but I wanted to ask you, like, 0:14:56.920 --> 0:15:00.200 don't you see yourself as laying a strong foundation for 0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:03.480 that work. I don't know. I'm a little ambivalent about 0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:07.040 the concept. And I think in part this is back 0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:11.200 to show me the data. There's a lot of I mean, basically, 0:15:11.200 --> 0:15:14.520 people report growth, but it's hard to know what that 0:15:14.600 --> 0:15:17.960 really is because the people typically reporting growth are the 0:15:17.960 --> 0:15:22.960 people who show the most severe symptoms. And there are 0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:25.480 some studies that measure growth a little bit differently, and 0:15:25.520 --> 0:15:28.200 I do find evidence for it, And to be honest, 0:15:28.240 --> 0:15:31.400 it's hard to believe that there isn't growth from these 0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:36.600 growth from adversity. And you know, I've experienced it personally, 0:15:36.640 --> 0:15:38.600 and I know there are some ways that we can 0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:42.600 show it, but I think the way it's commonly measured, 0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:44.320 and again I get back to data, the way it's 0:15:44.360 --> 0:15:48.880 commonly measured is seriously flawed. Ironically, I was in an 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:52.040 airport where flight was delayed, and I sat down next 0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:54.360 to this man in the airport. We started talking. We 0:15:54.440 --> 0:15:58.240 having the greatest time talking, and I asked him who 0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:00.360 you know? At one point we got around introducing and 0:16:00.360 --> 0:16:04.760 he was Richard Tedeski, and he was a super nice man, right, 0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:07.480 and so he at that time I was openly critical 0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:11.440 of the concept, and he knew that it was kind 0:16:11.480 --> 0:16:14.200 of funny we would sit down together, you know. I 0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:17.960 just to say it more briefly, I think it's real, 0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:20.520 but I think we don't know how much, and we 0:16:20.560 --> 0:16:22.600 don't know what it really is yet because we haven't 0:16:22.600 --> 0:16:26.080 been able to track it or tap it so well. Well, 0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:29.120 and first blush, it looks like your research program and 0:16:29.160 --> 0:16:32.160 findings are very well aligned. Although I suppose I should 0:16:32.200 --> 0:16:35.240 ask what is the difference between resilience and growth? I mean, 0:16:35.280 --> 0:16:38.000 that's kind of the key thing if we can really 0:16:38.160 --> 0:16:41.720 operationalize those two. Yeah. So I actually wrote a paper 0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:45.320 once called postramatic growth and Resilience two sides of the 0:16:45.400 --> 0:16:48.120 same coin or different coins. I think that was the title. 0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:51.040 That's exactly what I'm asking you. Yeah, So I think 0:16:51.080 --> 0:16:56.520 that I think that resilience is not the way we 0:16:56.560 --> 0:16:59.160 look at it is not post traumatic growth. It's basically 0:16:59.240 --> 0:17:02.400 people going back to where they were and since before 0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:05.840 before the event. They're doing well before the event. Is 0:17:06.000 --> 0:17:08.520 we track people before and after events. They're doing well. 0:17:08.560 --> 0:17:12.000 Before an event, something happens, there's a little perturbation, a 0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:14.679 little disruption for maybe a couple of weeks, and then 0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:19.320 they're back to being okay. I don't think it's necessarily 0:17:19.359 --> 0:17:23.199 true that some of those people haven't grown, but I 0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:26.320 don't know. I don't think we've actually got got at 0:17:26.320 --> 0:17:28.840 that in a very good way. We haven't. We don't 0:17:28.880 --> 0:17:31.520 know how to measure that, is what my associate is. 0:17:32.800 --> 0:17:35.760 So that's what that's the way. That's how I think 0:17:35.760 --> 0:17:39.119 of it. That they're not they're not necessarily overlap, but 0:17:39.160 --> 0:17:42.639 at least for some people they might. Gotcha that this 0:17:42.680 --> 0:17:46.600 has really helped me understand the differences and similarities between 0:17:46.600 --> 0:17:49.399 your program and there and the postematic growth program. That's 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:52.240 actually the topic of my next book is postraumatic growth. 0:17:52.320 --> 0:17:54.840 So I'm really trying to think this through very thoughtfully. 0:17:55.000 --> 0:17:57.120 It is true that there's a lack of studies that 0:17:57.440 --> 0:17:59.960 have a control group that can actually, I mean it's 0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:03.080 hard to have a control group within person for these 0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:05.960 kinds of post traumatic growth things. You can't obviously bring 0:18:06.000 --> 0:18:09.600 a someone who's died. You can't bring them. You can't 0:18:09.640 --> 0:18:13.600 do that control conditioning, you know. So it's it's it's 0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:17.360 tough to actually scientifically answer the question would they have been, 0:18:17.880 --> 0:18:20.520 you know, are they better off in terms of some 0:18:20.600 --> 0:18:23.520 areas of growth and if they didn't have the situation. 0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.360 So yeah, so the jury still out and the science 0:18:27.560 --> 0:18:31.360 you know, let's listen to Jeromale Singer, you know, let's 0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:34.280 let's look at more data. I will say, we'll say 0:18:34.280 --> 0:18:36.760 sorry if I can add one more thing please. I 0:18:36.880 --> 0:18:40.680 just went through a fairly difficult time with a surprising 0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:43.920 neurological problem that took me off guard, and at one 0:18:43.960 --> 0:18:48.840 point it was looking very serious. And somehow during that, 0:18:49.200 --> 0:18:52.600 during dealing with that, I had these kind of series 0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:55.199 of epiphanies where I realized I'm gonna be okay, you know, 0:18:55.280 --> 0:18:57.880 I can I can use some of the tools I've 0:18:57.880 --> 0:18:59.680 worked with and some of the tools I've written about 0:18:59.680 --> 0:19:02.439 the book, can just cope with this one piece at 0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:06.080 a time. And then it was almost almost happy at 0:19:06.080 --> 0:19:09.080 that point, you know, and I really I realized this 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:12.000 is really a kind of a growth experience. So in 0:19:12.040 --> 0:19:14.680 this adversity was definitely a growth experience. And I think 0:19:15.040 --> 0:19:18.800 that's the kind of thing that that that people really 0:19:18.920 --> 0:19:21.720 mean when they talk about growth and and I'm not 0:19:21.760 --> 0:19:23.919 sure we get at that, but I, you know, I 0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:26.360 think that's that's real. You know that kind of thing 0:19:26.440 --> 0:19:29.440 is real. Well, I certainly think so. And I think 0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:33.360 that humans in a lot of ways need to overcome 0:19:33.400 --> 0:19:37.040 adversity in order to have meaning in their lives. We 0:19:37.080 --> 0:19:42.840 don't really get terrible meaning from statically positive experiences. Maybe 0:19:42.880 --> 0:19:44.840 we do, Maybe we do, but not to the same 0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:47.960 sort of degree. Yeah, not to the same degree. I 0:19:48.000 --> 0:19:53.199 don't think you yeah, or flavor. So what is the 0:19:53.240 --> 0:20:00.200 resilience paradox? Okay, the resultant paradox which a very know 0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:02.159 if happy is the right we're it excited may not 0:20:02.200 --> 0:20:03.720 be the right error, But that was it was an 0:20:03.760 --> 0:20:07.240 important turn for me. I've been trying to understand this 0:20:07.359 --> 0:20:10.280 for years. So we know, we know we can identify 0:20:10.359 --> 0:20:14.640 people who show these resilient outcomes. They're resilient to these 0:20:14.720 --> 0:20:19.440 highly diversive events, these potentially traumatic events. So we can 0:20:19.480 --> 0:20:23.480 identify those people. We can identify the things that correlate 0:20:23.560 --> 0:20:26.679 with that outcome, the things that happened early on, you know, 0:20:26.720 --> 0:20:28.800 we can we can measure things right at the time 0:20:28.840 --> 0:20:30.960 of the event happens. We can sometimes if we have 0:20:31.040 --> 0:20:33.320 the right kind of data or the right kind of study, 0:20:33.400 --> 0:20:36.480 we can identify what they were like before, and what 0:20:36.480 --> 0:20:40.120 what characteristics and traits and behaviors they had and see 0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:43.040 if that predicts or correlates with that outcome. And we 0:20:43.119 --> 0:20:45.840 find we find a lot of these things. So, you know, 0:20:45.960 --> 0:20:49.760 you often read about the key five traits or you know, 0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:53.080 the key seven traits and magic bullets of resilience and 0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:56.600 magic traits and resilient people. But when we study and 0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.200 try to identify the different things to correlate, we find 0:20:59.240 --> 0:21:02.399 more than five. We find lots of them, and we 0:21:02.760 --> 0:21:05.720 other people find lots of these, and we keep finding more. 0:21:06.080 --> 0:21:08.600 So you have all these things that correlate with a 0:21:08.640 --> 0:21:15.080 resilient outcome, and you know, and they correlate. But then 0:21:15.119 --> 0:21:17.680 when we try to use those things to actually predict, 0:21:17.720 --> 0:21:20.200 so who's going to be resilient when this next thing 0:21:20.280 --> 0:21:23.960 happens based on these traits or even when it happens, 0:21:24.240 --> 0:21:28.800 we now measure these things certain traits, who is going 0:21:28.800 --> 0:21:31.479 to be resilient? Based on these traits? We find that 0:21:31.560 --> 0:21:34.240 we can't do it very well. It doesn't predict much. 0:21:34.560 --> 0:21:37.600 So in the statistical terms, the effects of each one 0:21:37.640 --> 0:21:41.840 of these these factors is very small. Essentially, what we're 0:21:41.840 --> 0:21:43.840 saying is that if you have one of these things, 0:21:44.000 --> 0:21:46.240 it gives us a little bit of a greater chance 0:21:46.240 --> 0:21:49.040 of being resilience. It moves the needle just a little 0:21:49.040 --> 0:21:51.280 bit of being resilient. And if we think of it 0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:53.320 as a pie chart, which is I'd like to do 0:21:53.400 --> 0:21:56.679 it that way, resilience is a pie and the things 0:21:56.720 --> 0:21:59.960 that the factors that the traits are resilient people whatever 0:22:00.000 --> 0:22:02.840 already we want to call them, are slices of the pie. 0:22:03.200 --> 0:22:06.040 And these are very small slices. So that's kind of 0:22:06.080 --> 0:22:09.680 the paradox. We know what correlates with resilience, but we don't. 0:22:09.800 --> 0:22:12.720 We're not very good at predicting resilience based on these things. 0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:16.720 Very interesting. I mean, I would argue that the characteristic 0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:21.760 neuroticism is it's quite strong, isn't it negatively predicting resilience? 0:22:23.520 --> 0:22:26.280 I don't think it's quite strong. I mean it correlates 0:22:26.320 --> 0:22:31.960 pretty regularly, but the correlation is probably you know, small neuroticism, 0:22:32.000 --> 0:22:33.840 though I think I don't know if it's a trait, 0:22:34.000 --> 0:22:36.919 So that's you know, not likely that people are not 0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:40.240 likely to be as resilient as neurotic. I don't know 0:22:40.240 --> 0:22:43.600 if we've measured that one. But it's even the things 0:22:43.680 --> 0:22:47.920 you would think like optimism or social support. Social support 0:22:48.000 --> 0:22:50.679 you know, to be able to rely on friends and 0:22:50.720 --> 0:22:55.960 relatives for emotional support and super that's a real common trait, 0:22:56.080 --> 0:22:59.880 a real common you know, resource to have. That's core 0:23:00.160 --> 0:23:03.600 it with resilience regularly, but it's never that big right 0:23:03.960 --> 0:23:06.680 when you look at the you know, statistical terms, again, 0:23:06.720 --> 0:23:10.280 the variants explain the amount of the likelihood of being 0:23:10.320 --> 0:23:14.720 resilient that we're actually we're actually explaining with that. And 0:23:14.760 --> 0:23:18.120 I'm puzzled over this for years. So maybe we need 0:23:18.119 --> 0:23:19.760 to add them up. Maybe we need to have a 0:23:19.800 --> 0:23:23.240