Sorites

William C. Darnell

(o.k., it's not really a sorites, but it is a logical argument-in-chain, so the name sorites will suffice until something better comes along ...)

1) There is a psychological theory called R.E.T. theory, developed by Albert Ellis, which has as its core tenet the idea that it is possible for a human being to control the way he [or she, either gender may be assumed whenever the pronoun "he" appears unless otherwise specified] feels by controlling the way he thinks.  [and...]
2) R.E.T. theory has been demonstrated to work in practice.  [and...]
3) There is a psychological theory involving the effects of traumatic circumstances upon the human brain (and this theory may be termed "trauma theory") which has as its core tenet the idea that certain experiences generate emotions that are de jure "unmanageable" (i.e.: uncontrollable)  [and...]
4) Trauma theory has been demonstrated to work in practice.  [therefore...]
5) Since R.E.T. theory postulates that ALL emotions CAN be managed, but trauma
theory postulates that SOME CANNOT, and both theories have been demonstrated to work in practice  [it may be logically inferred that...]
6) One of the following must be true:
a. Each theory is correct within its own limited domain, and the respective
domains occupied by the two theories do not overlap,
b. Neither theory is entirely correct; both represent parts of a larger, as yet undiscovered system that incorporates and synthesizes both, or
c. One theory, either R.E.T. or trauma theory, represents a limited case variation or subset of the other theory.  [and...]
7) Through examination of empirical evidence (too extensive to be listed here) it may be reasoned that 5c, above, is correct: Trauma theory is a limited case variation or subset of R.E.T. theory.  [more specifically...]
8) Trauma is what results when an individual cannot apply some form of R.E.T. to a given situation (although the R.E.T. so applied may not be formally-taught, "classroom style" R.E.T., as it is the effect that is important).  [therefore...]
9) Trauma theory is inapplicable (trauma will not occur) in cases where a human has had the opportunity to apply some form of R.E.T. or "pseudo-R.E.T." (i.e.: a self-taught, rather than a formally-taught, R.E.T. style process of rethinking the situation) to a given circumstance.  [and...]
10) The process of applying some form of R.E.T. or pseudo-R.E.T. to an experience to avoid traumatic effects may be termed "integration," and the techniques so used may be termed "integrative techniques."  [and...]
11) It may be logically inferred through application of empirical evidence (too extensive to list here) that the process of integration is the process of incorporation of an experience into one's frame of reference; where one has "built" a frame of reference sufficient to integrate an experience, one will not suffer trauma as a result of that experience.  [and...]
12) The process of integration may be used by children as well as by adults; a child may incorporate an experience without trauma, or may not do so, depending upon whether or not the child possesses a frame of reference sufficient to integrate the experience.  [however...]
13) The process of integration involves an individual's frame of reference of the moment (not some universal "meta" frame of reference); two persons may integrate the same experience using different frames of reference.  [and...]
14) The frame of reference used by a child to integrate a given experience may not be the frame of reference an adult would use to integrate the same experience.  [however...]
15) Since the purpose of integration is to avoid trauma, the exact frame of reference used to integrate an experience is irrelevant: the result is the same, and the result is what is important.  [and...]
16) It may be logically inferred that the process of integration is reversible: if the frame of reference a given person uses to integrate a given experience is later challenged and collapses, integration is disrupted and may be reversed, and that person may experience trauma at that point.  [therefore...]
17) Since children use unique frames of reference to integrate experiences, a challenge to the frame of reference a given child has used to integrate a given experience may cause that child to experience trauma.  [therefore...]
18) It may be reasoned that: IF A FRAME OF REFERENCE CAN BE FOUND THROUGH WHICH A CHILD MAY INTEGRATE A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WITH AN ADULT, THEN THAT CHILD WILL NOT SUFFER TRAUMA AS A RESULT OF THAT EXPERIENCE.  [however...]
19) IF THE FRAME OF REFERENCE USED BY A CHILD TO INTEGRATE A SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WITH AN ADULT IS LATER CHALLENGED AND COLLAPSES, THEN THAT CHILD WILL EXPERIENCE TRAUMA.  [and...]
20) Children understand the difference between physical pleasure and physical pain, except in the rare cases wherein a child is born incapable of feeling pain.
 [and. . . ]
21) Children seek pleasure and avoid pain, given a free opportunity to do so.  [furthermore...]
22) Children understand the differences among: emotional pleasure, as from joy, humor, and happiness (which may be termed "positive emotion"), emotional pain, as from terror, rage, and grief (which may be termed "negative emotion"), and emotional experiences that are neither painful nor pleasurable, as from acceptance, willingness, and curiosity (which may be termed "emotionally neutral").  [and, as a result...]
23) Children will seek experiences that produce positive emotion in preference both to those. that produce negative emotion and to those that are emotionally neutral, and also will seek emotionally neutral experiences in preference to those that produce negative emotion, given a free opportunity to do so.  [furthermore...]
24) Children understand the meanings of the words "yes" and no."  [and, as a result...]
25) Children will, assuming only that they have the vocabulary to do so, voluntarily use the terms "yes" and "no" given the free opportunity to do so.  [furthermore...]
26) Children understand the difference between circumstances in which there will be no consequence, or an insignificant consequence, as a result of giving a particular response to a yes/no question (which may be termed" independent circumstances"), and circumstances in which there will be a significant consequence to giving a particular response to a yes/no question (which may be termed "dependent circumstances")  [and therefore...]
27) Children will, assuming only that they have the vocabulary to do so, answer yes/no questions accurately and truthfully under independent circumstances.  [furthermore...]
28) Children understand the difference between the ABILITY to make decisions (which in political science is called power) and the RIGHT to make or PRIVILEGE of making decisions (which in political science is called authority).  [furthermore...]
29) Children understand that authority may be used to limit itself, and thus to check concurrent power, through the application of alterations to the frame of reference through which authority is applied (and these alterations may be termed "meta-rules")  [furthermore...]
30) Meta-rules may be applied to strip an authority-wielder's authority (and thus check his power) to apply consequences within the context of a given frame of reference.  [and...]
31) A circumstance in which an authority wielder cannot apply consequences is an independent circumstance.  [and...]
32) Since children will answer yes/no questions accurately and truthfully under independent circumstances  [it can therefore be reasoned that...]
33) In a circumstance in which an adult has mitigated his power and authority through application of a meta-rule, a child's answers to questions involving physical pain/pleasure and emotionally positive/neutral/negative experiences must be regarded as accurate and truthful.  [therefore ...]
34) Under such circumstances, circumstances in which a child is free to report his pain/pleasure and comfort/discomfort accurately and truthfully, if that child reports that a given experience is pleasurable and comfortable, and reports a desire that that experience be repeated, the child's report is EQUAL TO AND INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A STATEMENT OF CONSENT WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN. [and...]
35) Empirical evidence (to extensive to be listed here) leads to the logical inference that children have no pre-conceptions about sexual experience (i.e.: children have no instinctive aversion to sexual activity) that would tend to alter the conclusion given in 33, above.  [and, therefore...]
36) It must be believed that if a child reports that a given SEXUAL experience is pleasurable and comfortable, reports a desire that that experience be repeated, the child's report is EQUAL TO AND INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO THAT SEXUAL EXPERIENCE WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN. [thus...]
37) When frame of reference is considered, it is logical to conclude that children CAN, and possibly DO, consent to sexual activity with adults, within frames of reference that can serve to abrogate adults' power/authority, specifically:
a. friendship situations, in which friendship is the frame of reference,
b. gaming situations, in which the rules of the game are the frame of reference,
c. Socratic situations, in which free questioning without reservation is the frame of reference, and,
d. make believe situations, in which a play is the frame of reference, as well as in any other frames of reference that can likewise serve to mitigate power/authority.  [and...]
38) Without the mitigating effect of frame of reference based integration, any or all of the following effects may cause stress (trauma) in children involved in sexual activity with adults:
a. physiological effects resulting from arousal and subsequent detumescence,
b. the Westermark effect,
c. the effect of peer pressure,
d. the effect of maturation pressure,
e. the effect of gender preference identification conflict, and
f. genitalization of the sexual experience, as well as
g. other effects not mentioned here.  [however...]
39) When integrative techniques are applied through an appropriate frame of reference, the effects of the stressors listed in 37, above, will be mitigated or eliminated, either by eliminating the cause from the child's frame of reference entirely, or by enabling the adult to teach the child skills used to cope with the effect.  [and...]
40) As a child matures, and his frame of reference changes, integrative techniques can be applied to continue to mitigate or eliminate potentially traumatic stressors associated with sexual activity, including prior sexual activity with an adult.  [indeed...]
41) It may be logically inferred that this process (1 - 37, above) represents the method through which children learn to integrate all potentially traumatic experiences, indeed ALL experiences: that which is integrated into a child's frame of reference is acceptable, that which is not integrated is not acceptable.  [furthermore...]
42) Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response to trauma.  [and...]
43) Stockholm syndrome can be used to manipulate an individual to become psychologically dependent upon a person who has harmed him.  [and...]
44) As stated at 18, above, trauma previously mitigated or eliminated through integration in a child who has had a sexual experience with an adult may subsequently resurface if the frame of reference used by that child to integrate that experience is challenged and collapses.  [it logically follows that...]
45) A child who has integrated a sexual experience with an adult, but later has the frame of reference he used to integrate that experience challenged to the point that it collapses, WILL EXPERIENCE TRAUMA AT THE POINT AT WHICH HIS FRAME OF REFERENCE COLLAPSES, EVEN IF HE HAD EXPERIENCED NO TRAUMA PRIOR TO THAT POINT.  [and...]
46) Trauma so experienced by that child may result in a subsequent Stockholm syndrome-like dependence upon the person who caused the trauma, i.e.: UPON
THE PERSON WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHALLENGING THE CHILD'S FRAME OF REFERENCE.  [and...]
47) This sudden surfacing of trauma, coupled with the sudden dependence upon the person challenging the child's frame of reference, may be interpreted by an observer as caused by the original sexual experience, when in fact its primary (immediate) cause is the outsider-induced collapse of the child's frame of reference.  [and...]
48) This process may be interpreted by an outside observer as a "recovery," when, in fact, had the situation been left well enough alone, there would have been, as it were, nothing to recover from.  [thus...]
49) The process of "treating" children who have has sexual experiences with adults may, and often does, CAUSE the trauma it attempts to treat.  [and since...]
50) There is an effect called the observer effect or "Hawthorne effect" that makes it extremely difficult for a "neutral" interactant in a relationship to NOT subconsciously influence the individual with whom he interacts.  [and so...]
51) Collapse of a child's reference frame, and subsequent trauma, invoked during "treatment" of the child following sexual interaction with an adult, may occur because of the influence of the observer effect, even in circumstances in which the adult performing the "treatment attempts to remain "neutral."  [and, therefore...]
52) Most, if not all, of the trauma inflicted upon children as a result of sexual interaction with adults is actually inflicted AT THE POINT WHERE THE CHILD'S FRAME OF REFERENCE COLLAPSES following a challenge by a well-meaning but nevertheless harmful latecomer.  [and...]
53) It may thus be reasoned that most, if not all of the problems "caused by pedophiles" in our society are actually not the result of pedophilia or of interaction with pedophiles, which children can integrate, but rather the result of society's failure to universally teach integrative 'techniques to children within each child's appropriate frame of reference.  [and...]
54) Pedophilia appears to be at least partially genetic or otherwise non- psychological in origin.  [which means...]
55) Even if every pedophile in the world were killed today, more would be created within a generation.  [thus...]
56) It is illogical and stupid to continue to treat pedophiles, and the interactions of pedophiles with children, the way our society currently treats them, since the current treatment is traumatic to the involved children, while at the same time vilifying, and ultimately destroying, millions of pedophiles WHO CANNOT HELP WHAT THEY ARE (although some may learn to control their behavior).


William C. Darnell
February 21, 2002

[Back to Volume 12]  [Index of Authors]

 
Copyright 1989-2014 by the Institute for Psychological Therapies.
This website last revised on April 15, 2014.
Found a non-working link?  Please notify the Webmaster.