Your point was that nightmares need to continue in order to heal.
My point is that they don't. There is zero benefit to that, only harm. The 10-20 nightmares I'm referring to can be referenced from the past. They're not about benefit from future ones.
And also you don't need the nightmares at all, because there are plenty of other sources of material.
You're already misrepresenting the utility of nightmares in therapy. Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well.
> Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that your comments are in agreement with @nonrandomstring's comments.
You did happen to admit to the efficacy of experiencing nightmares as a means of reflection[0] and are now only trying to argue that 1) it's not necessary for nightmares to be experienced past a certain point[1] and 2) it's possible for this reflection to be done via other means[0]. @nonrandomstring's point[2] has been that experiencing the nightmares is therapeutic as a means of reflection.
To speak to possibly why this miscommunication happened, I can look at their comments and see places where they could use "a" instead of "the" or "can be" instead of "is" but it's worth noting that I can also look at your comments and see similar things.
[0] > First, it's one stream of reporting among many.
[1] > And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient.
[2] > Suppressing them may not be helpful and actually just kick the can down the road.
You make some fair and useful observations on nuances of language
which I'll try to pay more attention to.
I really wish that, had I said;
"Glad we've established a principle and now we're just arguing over
some details"
it would have made a difference. But I get the feeling there is
underlying hostility toward my reasonable and prudent critique of a
technology, and not specifically anything to do with crazygringo's
disputation.
Two things make me think that.
One is that immediately I was deluged with low-rent "show us proof"
comments, which frankly seem childish because a cursory search on "why
we dream" would turn up hundreds of results, many theories and links
to experimental evidence that are widely considered common sense
today. I subsequently replied with links to some of the lowest hanging
fruit in recent psychology literature.
The other is that a simple, sincere question designed to open up a
discussion and get to the nub of the matter was immediately and
tactically downvoted to -3. Does the question "why do people have
nightmares?" strike anyone as provocative, sarcastic, fulminating or
in bad faith?
I think what happened here in this thread remains as evidence for
coordinated resistance to rational enquiry and supports my case that
there are elements of anti-intellectualism here on HN.
Sorry I thought we had a glimmer of common ground there. You seem so
very sure of yourself. It doesn't hurt me for you to continue with
your beliefs if the only issue is that we disagree. It's just the end
of a promising conversation.
Your point was that nightmares need to continue in order to heal.
My point is that they don't. There is zero benefit to that, only harm. The 10-20 nightmares I'm referring to can be referenced from the past. They're not about benefit from future ones.
And also you don't need the nightmares at all, because there are plenty of other sources of material.
You're already misrepresenting the utility of nightmares in therapy. Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well.