Trigger Happy

 "There are wounds that never show on the body that are deeper and more hurtful than anything that bleeds."

— Laurell K. Hamilton

Clint Malarchuk was a hockey goalie who played in the NHL. 

He played with 3 different teams over the course of his 10 year career.

He won 141 games over those ten years.

But he will forever be remembered for a single incident that happened during a game on March 22, 1989 in Buffalo, when an opponent’s skate inadvertently severed Malarchuk’s artery in his neck and partially cut his jugular vein.

He lost a third of the blood in his body that night. It took over 300 stitches to close the wound. (The video is available on YouTube, due to its graphic nature, I will not link to it)

Miraculously he survived. 

But the horrors of that event were only just beginning. 

Eventually things got under control. He was seeing a mental health professional. He was on the right medications.

Then the Richard Zednick injury happened.

Zednick, also an NHL player, was cut in the throat by his teammate’s skate during a game. (Video is also available on YouTube, due to its graphic nature, I will not link to it)

Malarchuk didn’t witness the event, nor did he watch a replay of it later, but he heard about it, and he was asked to discuss it.

All seemed well, he discussed the situation with clarity and insight that only he could provide.

Except all wasn’t ok. 

Despite neither being there nor ever seeing a replay of the Zednick injury, the mere learning of it triggered Malarchuk’s PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).

Suddenly he couldn’t sleep. He kept on revisiting his own horrific injury.

It all became too much for him.

Eight months after the Zednick injury, and nearly 19 years after his own injury, Clint Malarchuk shot himself in the head with a gun.

For the second time in his life, he survived a near-death experience.

The reason I mention the story of Clint Malarchuk is to illustrate how triggers work. 

Triggers don’t need to be direct. 

The trigger might simply be hearing people discuss something.

What do I mean?

How do you speak when someone famous and renowned gets accused?

Do you say that the person is so famous that there is no way they could have done it?

Will you say that without witnesses, a victim cannot be believed?

Do you find some blemish in the victim’s character to diminish their credibility?

Will you say that it is the victim’s word versus the abuser’s word, and that isn’t enough?

Do you play the “lashon hara” card and silence the one who is mentioning the accusations?

Do you insist that the abuser’s “parnassa’ (livelihood) is going to suffer, and that sharing news of the allegations will harm the accused irrevocably? 

Do you play the “he has a family” card? Insisting that spreading such news harms the wife and children of the accused.

According to statistics, 1 out of every 3 girls, and 1 out of every 5 boys are sexually abused before they reach 18.

So it is quite likely that someone will overhear your comment, and be reminded about their own victimization.

And they’ll be reminded what they were told:

That they were making it up

That they can’t be believed

That the abuser has a family

That there is no way a man of the stature of the abuser could do such a thing

That they were saying lashon hara.

That without witnesses, they, the victim was powerless.

Based upon the aforementioned statistics, there are probably many people in your life (unbeknownst to many of their colleagues) who are survivors of sexual abuse.

By discussing these accusations and siding with the accused, it is quite possible that you’re triggering them.

PTSD and triggers are real.

They can happen even many years later, as the Clint Malarchuk story shows us.

By silencing victims, however one might be doing so, you’re basically playing a game of Russian Roulette, pointing a gun of PTSD at each and every person who is hearing your words.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

"You Did it by Yourself!"

 “Ask for help. Not because you are weak. But because you want to remain strong.”

-Les Brown

Based upon the actual definition of the word, “brainwashing” isn’t the correct word to use. But I will use it because I believe it best gets the message across. It is better to be understood accurately than to be misunderstood while technically correct.

The way we raise and educate our children is brainwashing. We take brains that are empty of information and we (try to) fill them with valuable lessons and morals. 

A child will take these lessons and use them during the course of their lifetime.

One lesson that we all bestow upon our children, is the lesson that was taught to us from when we were young, that the ideal is to be able to do something by ourselves.

Kids are rewarded when they can get dressed by themselves, tie their shoes on their own, and cross the street without assistance.

As they grow older, the goals become greater, but the message is still there, the ideal is to be able to do it by yourself.

Unfortunately, this message can be taken the wrong way.

By focusing on how great it is to do things by oneself, some children perceive it as a weakness if they are unable to, and therefore require assistance from others.

These same children turn into teenagers, and these teenagers turn into adults, all with the same belief:

“I am weak and I am a failure if I need help from others.”

If we want to end the stigma about mental health issues, if we want people to be comfortable seeking help, we need to start from the beginning.

Yes, we need to celebrate solo accomplishments. They are signs of growth and they’re worthy of being honored. 

But if we get carried away celebrating the solo, we risk brainwashing our children that they’re flawed if they need assistance. 

Life is about balancing many different things. These two opposite, yet equally important messages must be balanced. 

1. Doing something myself is a sign of growth 

2. Seeking and/or receiving assistance is not only ok, but it can also be a sign of growth

As it says in Koheles (Ecclesiastes), “There is a time and place for everything under the sun.” 

There is a time to do things alone and there is a time when one will need assistance of some type.

One is not greater than the other, it is all about knowing which applies when.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Cognitive Dissonance & Child Sexual Abuse

 “A mind that has no conflict, is not alive.”

― Abhijit Naskar

The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People desire consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict will cause a feeling of discomfort. In order to correct this discomfort, one will alter their attitude, belief or behavior to reduce their distress and restore the desired balance. 

Cognitive dissonance is a term that was coined by psychologist Leon Festinger. He was studying members of a cult who believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. He was fascinated by what he saw from its members after the predicted flood did not occur.

Fringe members were more inclined to recognize that the cult was wrong, while committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (e.g. the earth was not destroyed because of the piety of the cult members).

In other words, despite the fact that they were predicting a flood and the flood didn’t happen, the committed members steadfastly held that the cult was correct and didn’t see any reason to leave the cult.

As the old phrase goes: “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?”.

Obviously something has to give.

Same thing here, a person has two beliefs which they perceive to be true, yet they cannot coexist. So one perception must give way to the other.

This can also be applied to a case of child sex abuse when the abuser is someone who has gained the trust of the victim, as well as others.

What does this internal conflict do to the victim?

It makes them question how to balance the two conflicting pieces of data in their brain. On the one hand, their abuser was someone whom they were told cares about their well-being, is honorable, trusted and would never do something to harm them. Their abuser might have been a rabbi, priest, therapist, doctor or a family member (or many other examples). On the other hand, they know that the abuse done to them was very wrong.

Which one of these two conflicting pieces of data to be redefined? 

Is the one who abused them not as perfect or admirable as was previously thought, or should the abuse be marginalized and downplayed, allowing the abuser to keep their lofty status?

This might sound like a very easy decision for an outsider reading this on their phone, but trust me, for a 10-15 year old computing this in their brain, it is anything but simple.

Cognitive Dissonance is also used by society to defend sexual abusers of children. 

This is due to society’s desire to look up to people. We want our clergy to be holy, we want our teachers to be caring towards their students, and we want our doctors to “do no harm”.

So how do we as a society manage when we are presented with a claim that goes against the aforementioned perceptions?

Regretfully, many will resort to victim blaming.

“The clergy is still holy, the victim is troubled and making it up!”

“The teacher cares for the student, the victim is upset about a grade and trying to seek revenge.”

Abusers can be very manipulative, not just to their victims, but also to their communities.

It is quite common for an abuser to put themselves in a position of power or respect, in order to readily manipulate their community into refusing to believe accusations of abuse.

If we keep insisting that there is a single profession or personality type that cannot be a child abuser (due to our perception of them) then we’re no different than the cult followers who remain faithful to the cult despite the lack of a flood.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

The Journey that is Reporting

“We find after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us.”

-John Steinbeck

It isn’t easy for a victim of child sexual abuse to come forward. 

It also isn’t easy for the family of the child to encourage them to come forward.

Sometimes the reason is because of stigma. 

Sometimes the reason is because of denial.

Sometimes the reason is because of lack of strength.

It takes courage for both the victim and their family to come forward about the abuse. Part of that is because of community backlash, but part of that is because the perpetrator will also do as much as possible to make the journey extremely difficult and costly to the victim and their family.

Abusers will carefully select the type of victim who is least likely to get them into trouble. That can mean someone who is too shy to come forward, that can also mean someone who is in a situation where they are unable to come forward.

Over the years a number of stories have come my way which illustrate how difficult it can be for the victim and their family when they come forward with the abuse.

In one case, the victim and their family were in the United States illegally. The abuser knew that and used it to his advantage. When the child finally came forward about the abuse, the abuser immediately called the relevant federal authorities to “alert” them about a family who was in the country illegally who should be deported. 

Suddenly, this family wasn’t just facing the legal battle of trying to assist their child who was just sexually abused, but they simultaneously needed to deal with the federal courts trying to deport the entire family.

In another case, the abuser, despite not losing pay (suspended with pay, pending investigation) decided to sue the victim’s family for slander and defamation. 

Being that the victim was a member of a low-income family. They themselves didn’t have the money to even hire a lawyer to help them fight this ridiculous claim.

So the next time someone asks “If this person worked with kids for so long, why is this the first time that we are hearing of such a thing?” or “Why is it after one person comes forward, suddenly others come forward totally out of the blue?” or “If the accuser was telling the truth, why did they drop the case?” the answer is quite simple. The journey that awaits one after reporting child sex abuse is long, emotionally exhausting and financially draining. Many would rather just keep quiet. There are also those who do step forward only to reverse course due to the exhausting nature of the saga.

Sadly, some of the most meticulous abusers know this and will select the children and families who won’t have the courage and strength required to finish this legal quest until the end. 

What can we do?

At the very least, we need to help the victims and their families. We need to give them the support that they need. We must stop enabling the accused to continue their abuse of the victim (and by extension, their family), albeit this time via the legal system.

Also, we need to realize that just because someone didn’t follow through with their claim of abuse, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 

It can also mean that they didn’t feel safe enough to continue, and that falls directly upon us as a society.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Flip-Flopping

“Occasions when you can change your mind should be cherished, because they mean you're smarter than you were before.“

-Malcolm Gladwell

A number of years ago, there was a trend to label someone with the negative term “flip-flopper” if they changed their opinion of something after a period of time.

Due to this negative connotation, many people felt forced to stick with their original stance, lest they be branded a flip-flopper.

Despite the fact that calling someone out for flip-flopping is no longer trending, for many the damage is already done. They believe that they cannot, or should not change from their original stance.

These same individuals also have very unfavorable views of people who flip-flop.

In my opinion, not only is this wrong, but it is also quite sad.

Sometimes the issue might be that you didn’t have a specific piece of information at the time of your original decision. Other times you had all the facts, but things changed after choosing the chosen option.

Things change, people change and situations change. What was a wise choice last year might not be the smart option now.

Regardless of the process, it is not only ok to periodically reevaluate whether your initial choice is still the best option, it is ideal to do so.

Here is an example:

For the 1997 Super Bowl, Tostitos bought a 30 second commercial slot at a cost of just under $1.3 million dollars. A lot of time, money and effort went into creating what they believed was going to be the perfect advertisement for their product. Tostitos ultimately decided on a commercial that concluded with an actor bungee jumping with a Tostitos chip in his mouth, dipping the chip into Tostitos salsa at the bottom of his jump.

The commercial was all made and all the executives were excited about how this commercial would help sales soar to levels that they’ve never yet seen.

In the opinion of many, the commercial that they made was the best commercial for both the company and the products being advertised.

Then, three days before the Super Bowl, a bungee jumper who was due to perform at the Super Bowl halftime show died during a practice jump gone wrong.

Tostitos decided it was necessary to reevaluate whether this commercial was still best for the company and the products being advertised 

Even though Tostitos had nothing to do with this tragedy, days before the ad was due to run, they decided to shelve the commercial that they had created specifically for this special occasion.

Tostitos ended up using a very basic and forgettable commercial in its place. Making all the time and money on the research and development of the original commercial a total waste. 

There are many lessons from this story that we can learn both for ourselves, as well as to pass onto our children. 

First, it is okay to change your mind. 

Second, just as one should evaluate the situation before making a decision, one should also gauge as to whether they should stick with their decision or whether a change is the best course of action. 

Third, sometimes you will need to give up on something you’ve invested in, due to zero fault of your own.

Finally, one should never feel handcuffed to a decision due to their investment of time, money or emotions. A person can always walk away from a choice they’ve made.

Side Note: There is a professional term for one who ignores change and insists on sticking with their original plan, despite it no longer being viable. That term is called Continuation Bias, and there are airline pilots who have killed themselves and others due to it. (e.g. refusing to divert to a different airport when bad weather makes landing at the scheduled airport impossible).

 

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

For Example

 “One good analogy is worth three hours of discussion.”

-Dudley Field Malone

 

 

There are two types of people who speak. There are those who speak because they have a need to speak and there are others who speak in an effort to get their message to be heard. The former are called speakers, the latter are referred to as communicators.

Communicators will attempt to gauge how their message might be perceived and will take steps to ensure that it will not be taken the wrong way.

One way that this can be accomplished is by carefully choosing which examples and analogies one utilizes when delivering their message.

For example, I might have a wonderful example about how President Trump or President Biden have had their words twisted by the media. However, there are people who would use that to segue into a political argument, totally obliterating any hope of delivering the intended message.

Even in situations where the listener doesn’t shift the discussion into a political debate, the mere mention of a political figure with whom the listener disagrees with is enough to get the listener to figuratively mute the one doing the talking. Meaning words are being said, but nothing is being heard.

That’s why I find sports so helpful in my writing and speaking.

Sports can provide examples that most people can both relate to and are willing to hear in its entirety.

While there are many political examples that I can use to illustrate the need to be clear with words and how people can manipulate via cryptic messages, I will use a recent sports story to illustrate this point.

This point wouldn’t be as effective if I used Jared Kushner or Linda Sarsour as the example.

It was reported yesterday that a 24 year old ice hockey goalie lost his life.

The headline says: “Columbus Blue Jackets goalie dies after fireworks accident” 

To many this implies that the goalie died due his own improper use of fireworks. It also implies that the fireworks directly lead to his death.

However, per the reports the night after the incident, this person died because he fell and hit his head. Granted he was running due to an issue with fireworks, but was that what you thought when you read the words “died after fireworks accident”? 

There are three main lessons we should take from this.

 

1. While being succinct is extremely important, it should not come at the expense of the clarity of our message. We need to make sure that the message that we are trying to convey is the message that is being heard.

2. We should have our radar up when people are giving information to us. Are they trying to deceive us by omitting facts and highlighting non-relevant points? Are they attempting to imply a connection between correlation and causation when none exists?

Don’t be afraid to ask a valid question when you believe someone is doing verbal gymnastics in an attempt to mislead.

I was once speaking to a bochur (single boy) with a suggestion about a girl he should date. When I told him that the girl's parents are married, he immediately asked “to each other or to other people?”

Kudos for him to ask a basic question. The description “her parents are married” is the type of phrase that can be an intentionally misleading statement.

There is too much manipulation and verbal gymnastics out there.

Make sure that the message you are giving over is clear, without the need to decode and don’t be afraid to ask for clarification when you’re given a message that requires deciphering.

3. While controversial topics make for great conversation, steer clear of them when trying to use them as a segue into your point. Often the listeners won’t segue with you.

 

 

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

 

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

 

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

DARVO: The Toxic 3 Point Turn

 “I think a lot of what we learn about others isn’t what they tell us. It’s what we observe. People can tell us anything they want.”

― Iain Reid

 

When you watch a professional sporting event, you are watching the culmination of hours of practice and study. Teams employ scouts to observe their opponents in an attempt to gain insight as to their tendencies and behaviors.

 

Knowing how your opponent thinks, acts and executes will give you a tremendous advantage over them.

 

Using soccer as an example, if the goalie knows that a specific player will always try to kick a penalty to the low left corner, it will give the goalie a tremendous advantage when he is tasked with trying to save a penalty kick awarded to this individual.

 

When you learn about people, you can better anticipate their decisions and their actions.

 

Let’s say that Walter has an issue with time. He is habitually late. A co-worker who is unaware of Walter’s issues with punctuality will have a very different reaction to Walter being late than someone who is well aware of Walter’s lack of promptness.

 

Toxic individuals also have specific behaviors and patterns that they tend to resort to.

 

One of their common manipulation strategies is a 3 step process known as DARVO. This is an acronym which stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse the Victim with the Offender.

 

First they will deny the behavior or the wrongdoing within their behavior.

Then they will attack the one who is pointing out the wrongful behavior.

Finally, they will reverse the roles, claiming that they are in fact the victim whilst the one who is confronting their wrongdoings is actually the offender.

 

Here is an illustration of DARVO in action:

Famous male singer gets accused of sexual misconduct of a female:

1- Deny either the event or the severity of the event: “I didn’t do anything” or “I don’t understand why she is making a big deal out of nothing”

2- Attack: “She isn’t emotionally stable” or “She is doing this for money”

3- Reverse the Victim with the Offender: “I don’t know why she is trying to harm me like this. I have a wife and kids and this evil and vindictive woman enters my life and is trying to destroy my family”.

 

Sadly this works all too often.

 

Then there are the times when it gets used in a way that can silence both the accuser and those victims who have yet to come forward.

 

Example: Man of race X gets accused of racism against race Y

1- Deny: “I’m not a racist. I have plenty of friends of that race”

2- Attack: “Those people who are calling me a racist are haters who are trying to cause a rift where one doesn’t exist”

3- Reverse the Victim with the Offender: “I’m receiving so much online hate because I’m a member of race X and we live in a society which tries to harm people of my race”

 

Did you see what just happened in this latest example?

 

If I try to criticize the one accused of the racial comments, it will mean that I am a hater who is trying to cause a rift where one doesn’t exist and that I’m also part of a society who tries to harm members of race X.

 

It aims to silence people, and it sadly works on many.

 

Who are the ones who are most protected from a DARVO attack?

 

Research says that those are the ones who know about DARVO.

 

Knowledge is power, and the more you know about DARVO and other behavior patterns of toxic people, the less likely you are to be one of their victims.

 

Why? You may ask.

 

Just like advance knowledge of a hurricane enables you to properly prepare for the oncoming storm. So too the awareness of an imminent DARVO attack can empower you to properly protect yourself from the slings and arrows emanating from this toxic manipulator.

 

 

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

 

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

 

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here