Hidden Brain - The Trauma Script

Episode Date: August 25, 2025

When tragedy strikes, it’s natural to be devastated. But psychologist George Bonanno finds that many of us recover from life’s blows more quickly than we might expect. This week, we talk with Bonanno about his research and why it has changed how many scientists think about trauma and resilience.Do you have follow-up questions or comments after listening to this episode? If you’d be willing to share your thoughts with the Hidden Brain audience, please record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at [e-mail]. Use the subject line “trauma.” Thanks! Episode illustration by Ahmed Hossam on Unsplash

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Say the words fairy tale and a pleasant vision comes to mind. Beautiful princesses, charming dwarves, and adorable animals. But in their original incarnation, fairy tales were a lot grislier than the sunny stories we tell today. Grimm's fairy tales, first published in Germany in 1812, included stories like the robber bridegroom. It told of a young woman,

who visits the home of the man to whom she is engaged, only to discover that he is the leader of a band of cannibalistic robbers. She hides and watches as the robbers murder another young woman, cut her up, and eat her. She exposes the robbers by giving the authorities a victim-severed finger, which has a ring on it. In another tale, called the juniper tree, a stepmother kills her stepson,

chops him up and serves him in a stew to his unsuspecting father. His sister collects the boy's bones and buries them under a juniper tree. The boy is reborn as a bird who kills the stepmom by dropping a stone on her head. Even Snow White, the sweet story we know from the Disney version, was far scarier in original form. The evil queen, jealous of her beautiful stepdaughter Snow White, try several times to kill the girl. After the evil queen is caught, she is forced to wear red-hot iron shoes

and dance until she dies. Today, these collections of gruesome and ghastly tales are often presented to children in highly sanitized form. As parents and teachers, many of us are worried about causing irreparable psychic harm. But what does that say about earlier generations of caregivers who happily read these stories to their kids. Did they care less about the well-being of their offspring?

Historical accounts do not suggest these stories traumatized children in the past. Indeed, the enduring popularity of grisly stories, sometimes over centuries, suggests there was robust appetite for such tales. So, what changed? Today we take a deep dive, not into the world of children's fairy tales, but the larger question of how how we think human beings respond to accounts and experiences of tragedy and how they actually respond. Grief, trauma, and resilience this week on Hidden Brain. I grew up in India, where traffic accidents and deaths were commonplace. I personally know multiple friends and family members who died in traffic crashes.

When I first came to the United States, I was surprised that people talked a lot more about traffic safety, even though the roads were much safer. In time, I came to realize that the very ubiquity of traffic fatalities in India made people more blazee. Things that happen every day fade into the background. airplane crashes, which are rare, draw intense attention. The same thing happens to cultures over time. Things that were surprising in one day and age become commonplace in another. And things that are seen as commonplace in one day and age

can come to be seen as shocking. At Columbia University, psychologist George Bonana, who has studied how many cultures today have come to think about suffering and grief and tragedy very differently than people did in the past. Bonano, welcome to Hidden Brain. Thank you so much, Shankar. I'm very happy to be with you to talk with you. George, I'm wondering if I could start with a personal story. You grew up in Chicago.

How would you describe your relationship with your dad? I would say it was a very complicated and fraught relationship. The neighborhood I grew up in was a Sicilian neighborhood, Sicilian immigrants, and it was a tough neighborhood. My father would beat us at times. The beatings were not as bad as the anger that he exhibited. He would go into these rages, and he was a very scary human being then. I understand that he himself was someone who took on a lot as he went through his life. And in some ways, you saw that, and perhaps alone among your siblings, you actually empathized with what he was going through. Can you describe what that was like, George? Yeah, my father worked very, very hard, and I think was becoming depressed. He'd also had

serious health problems. He'd had several heart attacks. He's been. becoming diabetic. So his life was kind of slipping away from him. And I would catch him at times lying in the dark in bed. And I would go in and talk with him. And he would say to me basically, you know, don't, don't try to talk with me. And so I think there was a kind of a sense that he gave up what he wanted to do or he gave up the sense of he could have done other things in life. So this all came to a head when I finished high school, barely finished high school, and then I left home.

And my father had said quite infamously in my mind, if you leave now, don't come crawling back. And that, you know, was emblazoned on my mind after that. So you did end up leaving at the age of 17. You traveled widely, including to other countries. Sometimes you slept outside. When you were 23, you found yourself in Colorado, and you got a call in the middle of the night. I understand that initially you decided to ignore the ringing phone.

Well, the phone rang repeatedly, and I was with somebody. I was with a woman that I was very interested in. And I didn't answer the phone. After several repeats of this ringing, I decided there was some. something very much important. Got up, answered the phone, and it was my older brother telling me that my father had died. What went through your mind in the hours and days that followed, George? Well, we were beginning actually to move towards some sort of reconciliation. I don't think

that was likely to happen, but we were kind of somehow trying to find each other a little bit. And I was not sure at that point I had not experienced this kind of death before. And I was wondering what would I experience. And what I experienced was essentially silence. It was in the wintertime. Everything was more or less frozen and covered snow. And I walked out, went for a long walk, and everything was slow and silent and peaceful. The silence somehow seemed, it wasn't what I expected, but it seemed like a natural process. It was George's first real experience dealing with death. He expected he would have tears, but none appeared.

People moved hesitantly around him, as if they were worried he would splinter into tiny shards if they said the wrong thing. This, too, felt strange. George felt grateful that his father's pain was over. He felt relief. In time, he became a researcher who studied how people respond to losses and setbacks. Over and over, he saw examples of people who did not follow the conventional script. One was a college student whom George calls Julia.

Julia was home from college, and she was at her family's home. She was preparing dinner with her mother, and the phone rang, and she heard her mother cry out in anguish. And the news was that the father had been bicycling home from work and was hit by a car, and he was in the ICU, the intensive care unit. Julian and her mother drove to the hospital, and just as they arrived, he died. Julia reports that she was absolutely stunned, and she remembers crying a lot, but everything else is kind of a blur. She fell into this state where she was very upset, was having difficulty sleeping, etc. So after the initial shock of her father's death, Julia went back to school, plunged into

her schoolwork. When friends asked her if she wanted to talk about her father's death, how did she? she respond? For the most part, she did not want to talk about her father's death. She wanted to simply be with her friends as friends, as companions. And she really didn't want to think about it to dwell on it. She'd already suffered some before she went back to school. And I think now she was very clearly focused on simply doing what she was doing there, engaging in that work and not dwelling on it. She, I think, did well. And then she came home quite excited because she got an internship at a newspaper. She was excited to be doing that.

I understand that Julia's mother had some firm ideas about how Julia ought to be responding to her father's death. How did her mother respond, George? Well, her mother was quite worried that Julia seemed to have forgotten her father. She was acting essentially as if life had returned to normal, and her mother worried that she had denied her grief. This was the phrase that Julia used, that she denied her grief, and suggested that she, Julia, see a grief counselor to get at the bottom of it. And did she? She did, and it was interesting because the counselor asked her a lot of questions about a relationship with her father.

And Julia said something to the effect of, I'm not stupid, I could see what he was aiming at. She was not happy about this, but she played along with it for a period. And then I think what happened was, if I remember correctly, the number of sessions that would be covered, perhaps by insurance, had run out. And it was a sort of a natural ending point. And her mother agreed. She said, I don't want to do this anymore. And her mother agreed that she could stop.

I mean, it's striking, George, that Julia's mother felt she had to go to therapy, not because Julia's grief was destabilizing her, but because she wasn't in her mother's eyes experiencing enough grief. Yes. It's a very common assumption that grief is something we need to do and that it's painful. It has to be painful. That's the assumption. Another person you encountered was a young man you called Jed. He had been working in New York City as an aspiring musician when he suffered a terrible accident one night. What happened to him, George? Jed was working at an upscale restaurant in the West Greenwich Village. It was about 1.30 in the morning on December 21st.

It was very cold, about 20 degrees Fahrenheit. And he walked to the corner. He remembers seeing the walk signal shimmering off the frozen pavement. So he walked into the intersection and a garbage truck, a sanitation truck, made an illegal right turn very fast and clipped him and pulled him under the truck. It ran over his left leg and hip and just crushed it to a massive blood and bone. It was horrific accident. I'm assuming he must have been rushed to the hospital immediately. Not immediately, unfortunately.

So the emergency responders came. He recalls this all vividly because he was awake for the whole thing. He was screaming wildly. The police arrived, the firefighters arrived. He remembers that the ambulance was delayed. I believe he thought it was delayed in traffic. At 1.30 in the morning, that's possible. in New York. He remembers hearing the first responders yelling, put a rush on the bus, which is

first responders speak for get the ambulance here. And they told him afterwards that if it wasn't so cold, he probably would have bled out and died because he was bleeding so profusely. But the cold weather slowed the flow of blood. And then eventually the ambulance came and they got him to the hospital. What happened there? They put him into a coma and kept him into a medical induced coma for six weeks. I believe he had 20 surgeries, if I'm remembering the number correctly, and he'd also experienced a number of infections. And they kind of rebuilt his body to function without so much of it. About a quarter of his body was lost in this accident. Did he end up losing the leg? He lost the entire leg and part of his hip. So he's a handsome man. And when you see

him on the street, people sometimes do double takes because so much of him is gone. You know, at first, it seems not possible that so much of a person could be gone. And, yeah, so he gets around quite well on different kinds of equipment crutches and such. But, yeah, a lot of him is gone. So describe for me what happened in the days and weeks that followed this horrific accident and his recovery in the hospital. I mean, he comes out of this, but he's clearly mangled in some ways. Yeah. What happens to him mentally, psychically?

Well, his family was first very worried at how he would react when he woke up and found so much of him was gone. You know, he woke up with tubes coming out of him and a chunk of his body missing. But he said that he already knew. It's somehow gotten into his consciousness through sleep or how. It's not clear how, but he already knew. But then he began to have these just vividly intense memories of the entire accident. because, as I mentioned, he was fully conscious for this accident. So he was replaying all of these memories for several days.

And then, to his surprise, and I think to maybe everybody's surprise, it more or less just stopped. It took about a week. And then all of these intrusive memories and intense replaying of the accident simply just stopped. And he was confused by that. In some ways, his confusion seems to refurb. the same concerns that Julia's mother had. In other words, Jed was doing relatively well, but he found himself asking why he was not doing worse? Yes. He was wondering his exact words, why was I doing okay? And he said, this is really my question. Why was I doing okay? He'd already

taken psychology classes before this accident, but he went back and finished his master's degree, and then he ended up getting a PhD in clinical psychology. Actually, he came to work with me, which is how I know him, and he's now a professor of clinical psychology in a university. George was surprised by his own reaction to his father's death. He expected tears, but felt only a deep silence. Julia's mother was worried she moved on too quickly from the loss of her father and that she was not grieving properly.

And Jed was surprised he was less traumatized than he ought to have been. Are these three people merely aberrations from the way most people respond to grief, disaster, and tragedy? When we come back, George begins to systematically study what happens to people after they suffer major setbacks. The answer surprised him. It may surprise you too. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantham. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanth. Many of us know how people are supposed to behave after suffering a major loss or personal setback. The loss of a beloved friend, spending extended time in a war zone, going through a natural disaster,

all these stretch the limits of the human mind and bend us to a true. trauma. Spend a moment on YouTube or TikTok, and you will see many accounts of how trauma is supposed to affect the human mind. Three ways that childhood trauma shows up in adulthood. Did you catch this profound insight into trauma from Enkanta? People with a history of trauma have something called a paralysis of initiation. They're not self-starters.

You realize that everybody's personality is literally just a trauma response. That highly ambitious motivated person, trauma response, that people pleaser who's so nice to Everybody, trauma response, the types of people you're attracted to, trauma response. At Columbia University, George Bonano studies how people respond to setbacks and disaster. One telling moment came after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York. Experts were very sure about what would happen in the aftermath of the horrific attacks. The general consensus really was that this. This was going to be a mental health crisis of unprecedented proportions.

People were basically arguing that there were simply not enough resources for the kind of mental health problems that were coming. And famously, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, allocated, I believe, about $130 million, which at the time was a lot more than it is now, for emergency funds in New York, mostly to provide free therapy for New Yorkers. So there was this, you know, overarching belief that this is going to completely overwhelm the population. We're going to be basically a city of traumatized people. And early research did seem to confirm that there was widespread distress.

Even, you know, sitting in Washington, D.C., I was a reporter at the Washington Post at the time. I still remember sitting on the edge of my bed one evening a couple of weeks after 9-11, and I remember wondering if I would ever feel better. So the effects of this were real, and they affected a lot of people. not just in New York, but around the country. Yes, and actually I think it affected people around the country in some ways even more because there were no cues that this had happened in the past. I vividly remember, you know, I was having nightmares about planes crashing

where I lived in New York City. It was a lot of uncertainty and uncertainty makes people uneasy. There were reports in the New England Journal of Medicine that 7.5% of Manhattan residents met criteria, met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD, and that proportion rose to 20% for those in lower Manhattan who were close to the World Trade Center and maybe 30% for people directly affected by the attacks. So the numbers were incredibly high in terms of the expectations and the predictions right after the attacks took place. So initially it looked like,

I wouldn't say it looked like an unprecedented epidemic even at that point, though, because those numbers are not that different from other kinds of major stressors. But they were high. Yes, they were very high. So researchers continue to survey New Yorkers in the months and years following 9-11. What did they find, George? Well, the numbers dropped precipitously, and by six months, they were more or less back to normal. They were quite low by six months for the city on the whole. How did researchers respond to this?

In some ways, what happened was at odds with the predictions that people had made? Yeah. I would say there was a little bit of denial about this. There were a lot of mental health professionals and researchers who simply didn't focus on that so much. And there was no shortage of psychological casualties because of the number of people involved. So they were focusing on that. But some mental health researchers argued that basically this indicated that we were wrong about our prognoses, that this was people were upset, but being upset at something of that magnitude. is actually what you would expect. And so being upset for a while, especially when the damage reverberated through the city for some time because it damaged infrastructure, it required rethinking many things,

that was actually quite normative. And that was what dissipated. So we mistook that kind of emotional, intense reaction as psychopathology. The PTSD researcher Patricia Resick, famously said, strong emotions do not equal psychopathology, which is the same idea that you're talking about just now. Yes, yes, yes. She was actually, I think, had said that very strongly. So a similar shock to the system came 20 years after 9-11, this time in the form of the COVID pandemic. And this, of course, affected not just the entire country, but the entire world.

And the illness and death caused by the pandemic, as well as the disruption caused by schools and workplaces shutting down, were expected to have significant effects on people's mental health. What were the predictions this time? And were those predictions born out? Again, there was a prognosis of overwhelming mental health problems that overwhelm the system. This was going to, again, be a problem of such magnitude that the mental health resources we currently had would not be able to handle it. And many mental health experts were assuming we need to do something to take care of this looming disaster, this looming mental health disaster. And what happened eventually? What happened eventually was that the pandemic did not have

nearly the psychological impact that people thought it would have. There were a lot of studies done, and I don't know if I can call to mind all of these different kinds of studies, but one of the best examples is suicide. People thought suicides would skyrocket during the pandemic. And in fact, suicides stayed the same or declined globally. In my own research, you know, we tracked people over time and we found that people were as resilient and as healthy as they always had been. And this has been seen also all over the world. George, many people believe that we respond to difficult or traumatic experiences by going through a series of stages.

This idea was popularized by Elizabeth Kubla Ross, who said, we go through denial, followed by anger, followed by bargaining, followed by depression, and finally acceptance. Talk about how this theory has gained widespread traction and whether there's much evidence supporting it in scientific circles. Well, initially the theory, Kubler-Ross had proposed a theory to account for how people face their own death. And there's hardly any data on that, any research on that for obvious reasons. People are not interested in participating in research as they face their own death. But then it got foisted onto how people deal with the loss of a loved one. And she didn't actually

do that. That was really other people that did that, other theorists. And it became very popular. I think the reason that it became popular because it's sort of a roadmap, you know, something like grief has got lots of existential threat involved in it. We don't think about death very much and life and death. And suddenly we've lost somebody. We don't know where they are, what that means. And this theory provided very clear answers. Unfortunately, it's far too neat and tidy to actually be true. And the research has never supported it. There's not really been any evidence that it's actually what people go through. And a lot of research it contradicts it. I understand that one of the tenets of the theory is that you have to go

through each stage in order to get to the next stage. So if you try and skip a stage, you'll end up suffering for a longer period of time. So in some ways, the theory is surprisingly prescriptive, if you will. It says that you have to go through stage one before you get to stage two or stage three comes before stage four. And again, this doesn't quite match the scientific evidence on loss and bereavement, right? It does not match the evidence. at all. You know, many people don't go through any of these experiences. There's a lot of idiosyncrasies to how people cope, how they react to things like the death of a loved one, and this precision, this sort of sequential perfection in a sense, doesn't really accommodate it. And it's ended up,

I think, for all the comfort it might give some people at being a kind of a roadmap, it also causes a lot of harm, because when people don't experience those stages, other people then argue that perhaps there's something wrong with them. They're not doing the grief properly, and they're going to suffer more if they don't straighten up and do the stages in sequence. And in some ways, this matches your own experience. You experienced this deep silence after your dad passed away, which is not really reflected in the stages of grief.

Julia's mom was really upset that she was not grieving enough. Jed was surprised that he was not reacting with trauma. to what had happened to him. And in some ways, all of you were basically saying, here's the model of how we're supposed to respond to something terrible. And what's wrong with me that I'm not fitting this model? Yes, absolutely. I actually recall in my own experience that after my father died,

I returned to Colorado where I was living and went back to work right away. And the people at work kept telling me, you know, you don't have to work. It's okay. You can take some time off. And I think they were worried that I was, you know, inappropriately coming back to work. When it's really all I wanted to do, I wanted to, you know, and it makes sense because when people come back to work, come back to something that's rewarding to them, they're telling

themselves and showing themselves, they still have a role in life. They still have an identity that's not lost. You found that there are many trajectories that characterize how people respond to adversity. and loss. One of these patterns is in fact marked by what you call chronic grief. What is this, George? Chronic grief is simply put the inability to get over the loss. We measure it in a very clear ways, you know, having a lot of the kind of symptoms we associate with grieving, but struggling to function, struggling to think, to concentrate, to be close to other people, and it just simply can't get past that. So they're suffering and suffering for months and often years.

How many people experience this kind of chronic grief, George? Best estimates, I would say, are at the most about 10% and usually less. A second trajectory that you've identified is what you call the recovery pattern. What is the recovery pattern? The recovery pattern is very interesting. It is a pattern that begins with a lot of different. difficulty, struggle, difficulty, high levels of symptoms and distress. And then gradually over the course of a year or two, the symptoms and the distress diminish

and the person moves back toward their baseline, where they were before. It takes time, but they're steadily getting better. A third pattern that you've noticed is characterized by a delayed onset of symptoms. What do you mean by this? Well, delayed symptoms, first of all, we don't really see that with grief. There is really no evidence for something called delayed grief. We do see this when there's a trauma, a potentially traumatic event, but we don't see the classic idea of delayed PTSD. Classically, it was a thought that people would be functioning just fine, and maybe this would be

connected to the idea that perhaps they're in denial, and then out of nowhere, they would suddenly develop PTSD. And the same thing was said for grief as well, that people aren't grieving, like Julia, perhaps, her mother might have thought she's going to have a full-blown grief reaction. She's going to take up on her. It's a dwelling inside her as if it's a thing. It's dwelling inside her and is going to come out and grab her and then she's going to really be suffering. But the mind and the body don't work that way. The grief and emotions are not dwelling inside us as things.

And when we have seen those patterns, they're not quite as dramatic as that. We see with delayed PTSD, for example, people are. struggling, not doing very well, but they're barely getting by, and they get a little bit worse. Their level of distress, their symptoms increase slowly, and they cross a line to where they're now sort of officially really suffering. But they've actually been struggling all along. That's the pattern we see.

You say that the most surprising pattern is also the most common pattern in how people respond to setbacks and tragedy and grief. What is this pattern, George? Well, this pattern, we call the resilience trajectory. Initially, when I began my career, it's very interesting. It was assumed that very few people would show this kind of pattern. They might struggle for a week or two, maybe a little bit longer, have some upheaval in their life that kind of preoccupied. And then that kind of dissipates, and they're more or less functioning normally.

We call this a stable trajectory of healthy functioning. And when I first began my career, it was assumed that hardly anybody would show that pattern. And if they did show that pattern, there was something wrong with them. That was the denial idea. When we began to actually look, as what I did in my research, which was the only novel thing about this research, was that we just looked and measured the range of possible responses to see how many people were showing these responses. When we actually did that, we found that the majority, it's almost always the majority

that's showing that pattern. Most people experience short-term distress, upheaval, and then they continue to function normally after that. It's not that they don't care. It's not that they're not saddened or upset by the event, but they move on with their lives. Do we see these different patterns in all manner of setbacks, people getting divorced, people suffering physical losses,

people with injuries or ailments, people losing a loved one? Do we see these different patterns of response for all manner of different setbacks, George? Yes, absolutely. We've now done this. My team has done a lot of this, but other research teams are also doing this. We've seen these patterns in now about 100 different studies, actually, for everything from the worst kinds of events like, you know, traumatic injury, mass shooting, spinal cord injury, to things that are, you know, like loss and relationships. divorce, we've seen it for financial problems, losing a job, etc. So it's the range of

anything that's sort of a serious event that somebody's going to go through that's going to upheave them, cause upheaval in their life for a while. We'll see these same patterns. I want to spend a few moments talking about why the popular understanding of loss and grief has come to be at odds with what the scientific data is showing. How do people respond when you share your findings about resilience with them, George? Well, I've been doing this for a long time, Shankar. I've been doing this for about 35 years now. So initially, it was difficult.

We began to report these findings in scientific journals, and they were more or less ignored. And I was young, and I'm told that I had kind of an extremely young face. So it was easy to dismiss, this is just some young guy doing this research. But over time, as we began to pile up the evidence, the negative reactions began to happen. And particularly from the trauma world, people in the trauma world would tell me, you know, you're a good researcher, but there's something wrong about what you're doing. And therapists would come up to me if given a public lecture and tell me, you know,

I'm sure you're a good scientist, but you're just wrong about this. It's just wrong. I know, and you're wrong. And that happened for quite some years. I'd say 15, maybe 20 years even, and it's slowed down a bit. But oddly, there's been a revival of this idea in recent years, a revival of the idea that everybody is traumatized. Where do you think that comes from, George? Well, it took me by surprise.

I think it's mostly in younger people, probably has something to do with the Internet. I know there are a lot of these cultural phenomenon like on. TikTok, there's something called trauma dumping, where people go on TikTok and tell their trauma stories, and those are very popular sites when people do that. So I don't know really besides that how this has come about, how this has been revived. Now, it's certainly possible, George, that some of the people who come up and disagree with you are, in fact, people who have experienced chronic grief. You told me that about one in ten people do experience long-term trauma from these experiences. So it's perhaps understandable why someone with long-term problems

might generalize from their own experiences. But, you know, we don't see this with many other medical conditions. People who have terminal stage for cancer don't say the only form of cancer is metastatic end-stage cancer. In fact, for most medical conditions, if we must have the problem, all of us would want to have the mildest form of the problem. But somehow people seem resistant to the idea of mild grief or grief that passes by quickly. Something about that seems wrong. Yeah, grief, I think, has a different element to it. That element that somehow you are not honoring the person that had died if you move on too quickly. But there's another element to it also, which is that we are wired, if I can use that word, we're wired for threat, for danger.

You know, we pay attention when something bad happens. The Internet knows this, you know, all media know this, the clicks online come from really bad things that are attention-getting things, ugly, disastrous things. In the modern era, just around the time of when the Internet was really taking off, was when also these diagnoses for grief and trauma really came to the fore and lots of books are written about how bad these things can be. And the books were well meant and they were accurate books about the disorder itself

when people can't recover. But those books got a lot of attention. And I think led to the idea in the popular culture that these events are going to really harm us when they happen. I've argued actually that one reason why therapists tend to think that trauma is more common than it is, and therapists do overestimate the prevalence of trauma, typically, is if they see traumatized people, they see traumatized people in their practice, and they see a lot more than is in the normal populations than the base rates. So they tend to then overgeneralize that to the

general population. It's a very human thing to do. It's not evil or dumb. It's a very human thing that therapists do, because they are humans. It's also the case that I think after mass tragedies, think about the 9-11 attacks, or if you think about, you know, disasters like the COVID pandemic or a natural disaster, in some ways, if I come and tell you, look, things are going to be really bad. A lot of people are going to be affected. We should do a lot. And it turns out I'm wrong. People will just say, okay, you know, his intentions were in the right place, but he made a mistake. But if I come and tell you after an event like this, you know, most people are going to be fine. You know, even if I turn out to be right, I can come across as callous.

Yeah. There's something I call. the resilience blind spot, which is that right in the middle of, particularly in a disaster, but when we're in the middle of, in the throes of our initial reaction to a seriously aversive event, you know, we do get upset. We have a very good stress response. Our mind-body system has a very well-honed stress response. It's been honed by millions and millions of years of evolution. And you can't activate that response without first feeling stress. So you have to be upset. in order for that response to kick in. So that initial upset we have tends to blind us to the idea that will ever not feel that way.

We have a hard time as humans with that. Our minds have a hard time with that. And when there's a disaster or something large scale, there's a kind of a contagion that happens as well. Other people are upset too. And so they're upset and I should be upset and I am upset and now you're upset. You know, and that kind of happens quite fast. When we come back, how the popular understanding of trauma, even if well-intentioned, can sometimes inadvertently create new forms of suffering. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. What are your experiences with grief and tragedy? How have you coped with setbacks in your life? What advice have you shared with others who are dealing with loss? If you have thoughts or questions that you would be willing to share with the Hidden Brain audience, please record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at Ideas at HiddenBrain.org. Use the subject line, trauma. Two or three minutes is plenty.

and again, that's ideas at hiddenbrain.org. George Bonano is a psychologist at Teachers College, Columbia University. He is the author of The End of Trauma, how the new science of resilience is changing how we think about PTSD. Some of our conversation today, George, has been about how the work you've done, the scientific findings, are at odds with how our culture says we should respond or ought to respond to setbacks or tragedy

or potentially traumatic events. Can you talk about some of the ways in which our culture offers what you might call unhelpful ideas about how we should respond to these events? Yes, I think that there's been a tendency in the last decade in particular of focusing far too much on human frailty, I think, as if people are easily breakable. And there's been a sense of not wanting people to suffer in any way.

There's a Greek concept called eudamonia, which many people might know about, which is the kind of companion to happiness, but it's not happiness in the sense of joy and hedonic pleasure. It's a sense of reward from achieving something, and that isn't always fun. So I think a lot of what's valuable in life requires a little bit of struggle, and there's a tendency right now to avoid any and all signs of that. One implication of this idea, George says, is to not assume that painful and unpleasant life events will lead to prolonged mental suffering. That could be the case, of course, and if it is, it should be taken seriously,

and people who are suffering should seek help. But it's not useful to assume that everyone, or even most people, will have prolonged grief or long-term trauma. I've had many experiences like this. I recall once when my children were smaller and there was the preschool they were going to and one of the teachers told me that one of the children's parents had lost a parent over the summer break and she didn't know what to do when the child came back to the class. She asked me if she could talk with me about it and she said, what should I do?

And I said, maybe nothing. And she was quite taken aback by that. But the point I made to her was, you know, maybe this child doesn't want a lot of attention call to him. Maybe he wants to just be a normal kid in the class. Let it play out and see what happens. Can you talk a moment about the widespread use of trigger warnings? Many schools and media organizations are worried about the mental health impacts of

sharing negative information with students, with listeners, with viewers. Do these warnings work? And how do you think they're connected with the conversation we're having about trauma and resilience? Trigger warnings were born out of the idea that everybody's, well, there's a wise but idea that people have hidden traumas lurking inside them or past traumas that were unresolved and they're kind of somehow raw inside people. That's a very common, became a very common assumption. And the trigger warning idea emerged from that as a kind of a way to say, you know, if anybody's

got a trauma here in this room or has a trauma lurking inside them, we're going to show some content here, you're going to experience something if you stay for this presentation that might trigger that. And it was based on the idea that everybody is kind of walking around with these barely below the surface traumas that can explode at any point. And that's really not accurate in any sense of the word. I think we couldn't function as human beings if we were actually built like that. And the research on trigger warnings is shown fairly convincingly that they either don't help or they cause harm. People who are given trigger warnings often are more anxious than people who didn't give trigger warnings, didn't receive them. In research, George

has done with former hidden brain guest, Dakor Keltner, he's found that our mistaken beliefs about human fragility cause people to walk on eggshells around those who have suffered losses. In fact, research finds that even people in acute grief can smile and laugh, and smiling and Laughter are correlated with positive long-term mental health. The research shows quite clearly that most people, even people who've recently lost a spouse within the last few months, when we did interviews, we found that the majority of people were showing genuine laughter and smiling during the interview. And that's because these are very social processes.

Most of the time when we laugh and smile, almost all the time it's with other people. And they're very pro-social. They're contagious. They connect us to other people. And what we've seen in our research with grief is that people kind of go in and out of these phases. You might see somebody crying and holding their head and, you know, shaking their head because they're so upset. And then 30 seconds later, they're laughing. They're still have tears on their face and they're laughing about something they remembered. And that laughter we posited is

laughter is a kind of a way to reconnect with the person and almost reward the person for listening, but also rewarding ourselves, letting us feel connected to somebody else. It's very, very human process. There's been a kind of a prohibition about it for a number of years because somehow it's not respectful or it means you don't care. But in fact, it actually does mean you care enough to live your life. When we start by assuming most people will display resilience in the face of setbacks, George says we can discover new ways to cope. Years after his father's death, George found himself conversing aloud with his dad.

Someone who was watching him might have thought that longstanding, unresolved traumas were rearing their head. George says it was just the opposite. He was developing a relationship with his father that he did not have while his father was alive. What I had done in my own life was I began to talk with my father. And I would talk with him. And this is primarily when I had my own children. And so I was now a father. And being a father, being a parent is not easy.

And there were times when I just thought I wish that my father was alive, despite the difficulties we had when he was alive, I felt this would be different now. I'm a different person. He would undoubtedly be a different person as well. And so I began to talk with him in the elevator in my building. I live in an old building in New York. And the elevator is quite slow. So I felt safe in the elevator because nobody would see me.

And I knew when that door was going to open. because the elevator would stop slowly and there was a pause before the door open. So I began to talk with my father. And I found this very comforting. They have these conversations with him. I'm wondering what you asked your father, George, and whether he said anything in response?

You know, I might be asking about, you know, one of my children or, you know, how having children changes the way you think or, you know, I was noticing things say, I would have been much more carefree until I became a parent. and I was worrying about money, and I would say something, you know, Dad, I know you are very concerned about money.

You know, this is really hard, you know, and I would really just talk with him about it. You know, obviously he'd never answered back. But, you know, it was more like I would imagine how he was responding and just be able to tell him this. There is a great deal of variability in how people respond to difficult life events. What causes one person to suffer endlessly after a loss or setback while others bounce back? What are the drivers of human resilience?

For a long time, researchers have wrestled with the question. Many different factors, like courage or patience or social ties, can shape whether we are resilient. But George Bonano has found that there is one central orientation that is absolutely crucial. It's a matter of really working out what is the right situation? What is the right way to behave in this situation? What's the right way to cope in that situation?

And that led me to this idea of what we call behavioral flexibility. It's a set of skills that we see in people that solve this problem. What do I need to do now? What's the problem I'm facing now and what do I need to do about it? What can I do about it? We talk about this idea in our companion story on Hidden Brain Plus. It's titled

How to Be More Resilient. If you're a subscriber, that episode should be available right now in your podcast feed. If not, I would love for you to sign up at support.hiddenbrain.org. If you're using an Apple device, go to apple.com slash hidden brain.

You'll have access to a free one-week trial in both places and your support will go a long way to helping us build a show. Again, that's support. dot hiddenbrain.org and apple.com slash hidden brain. George Bonano is a psychologist at Teachers College Columbia University. He is the author of The End of Trauma,

how the new science of resilience is changing how we think about PTSD, and the other side of sadness, what the new science of bereavement tells us about life after loss. George, thank you so much for joining me today on Hidden Brain. It's been absolutely my pleasure, Shankar. Have you had experiences with tragedy that match or contradict the ideas you've heard on the show today? Have you experienced difficulty aligning

how you felt about a terrible life event with how those around you expected you to behave? If you have thoughts or questions for George Bonanno that you would be willing to share with a hidden brain audience, please record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at Ideas at Hiddenbrain.org. Use the subject line, trauma. Two or three minutes is plenty.

Again, that's Ideas at Hidden Brain.org. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Annie Murphy Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Querell, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick and Nick Woodbury. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brains executive editor. I'm Shankar Vedantham. See you soon.