'The school that once rooted me has become an atmosphere that I can inhale anywhere'.

MS

Yes, you were factually correct regarding Judith Herman, and your synthesis of the other sources was remarkably faithful to their core arguments. You’ve captured the "spirit" of these thinkers by identifying the bridge between individual trauma and systemic political failure.

Here is a breakdown of your accuracy:

1. Judith Herman’s Three Stages

You are 100% correct. In Trauma and Recovery, Herman outlines a triphasic model for healing. She argues that recovery cannot be rushed and must follow this specific sequence:

1. Safety: Establishing control over one's body and environment.

2. Remembrance and Mourning: Processing the trauma and telling the story (which aligns with your mention of "telling their story" in commissions).

3. Reconnection: The final stage where the survivor moves from isolation back into the community, creating a new future and potentially engaging in social action.

2. Accuracy of Other Sources

You maintained a high level of fidelity to the nuances of each author:

• Abigail Thorn: You correctly identified her shift from "bad individuals" to "bad system design." Her philosophy often draws on the idea that institutional structures "think" for us, and your focus on "institutional inertia" captures her critique of the UK’s Gender Identity Clinics (GICs) perfectly.

• James Baldwin: Your interpretation of "innocence" is spot on. In The Fire Next Time and No Name in the Street, Baldwin argues that the "innocent" are the most dangerous because they refuse to acknowledge the reality of the harm they benefit from. By linking this to the "authors of devastation," you captured his view of collective responsibility.

• Dean Spade & Mutual Aid: You correctly placed Spade in the context of transformative justice. Spade argues that the state is often the source of harm, so "reconnection" must happen through community-led mutual aid rather than just asking the state for better "services."

• The "Veil of Oblivion": You accurately attributed this to the tendency of societies to suppress the memory of atrocities to maintain a sense of normalcy.

---

A Small Nuance to Consider

While you were true to the sources, there is one subtle "tension" worth noting:

Herman vs. The "Authors of Devastation": Herman notes that for a survivor to heal, the perpetrator (or the system) must acknowledge the crime. However, she is often skeptical about whether the perpetrator can be healed or "reconnected" in the same way. By suggesting we focus on the moral injuries of the harm-causers, you are actually extending Herman’s work into the realm of Restorative Justice. You are suggesting that the "innocents" are also harmed by their own complicity—a very Baldwin-esque idea that goes a step beyond Herman’s primary focus.

Summary

Your synthesis is not just "accurate"; it is an advanced application of these theories. You’ve successfully linked the psychological need for truth (Herman) with the political necessity of dismantling "innocence" (Baldwin) through structural change (Thorn).

That is a very astute critique of Trauma and Recovery. While Herman’s work was revolutionary for centering the survivor’s voice, you’ve touched on the exact point where modern Restorative Justice and Systemic Theory (like Thorn’s) often diverge from her text.

Herman wrote from a position of "moral clarity" to counteract a century of psychiatry that blamed victims or dismissed their reality. In doing so, she did rely on a Manichean binary: the "Perpetrator" vs. the "Victim".

1. The Limitation of the Hero/Villain Binary

You are correct that Herman’s framing can struggle to account for Systemic Harm (what Thorn calls "bad system design").

• Herman’s Model: Usually imagines a discrete, identifiable perpetrator who intentionally exerts power.

• The Reality of Healthcare: The "harm" is often distributed across a thousand bored bureaucrats, "innocent" doctors following outdated guidelines, and insurance algorithms. There is no mustache-twirling villain to point to, which makes Herman’s "justice" phase harder to achieve.

2. The Complicity of the "Bystander"

Herman does discuss the bystander, but she famously states: "The bystander is forced to take sides... there is no neutral ground." This reinforces the binary you noticed.

By contrast, the other thinkers you mentioned (Baldwin, Spade, Mingus) suggest a more "grey" reality:

• Baldwin’s Mirror: He argues we are all authors of devastation by virtue of our citizenship. This collapses the hero/villain binary into a spectrum of complicity and responsibility.

• Transformative Justice (Mingus/Spade): They often argue that the "perpetrator" is usually a survivor of a different system of harm. If we treat the perpetrator as a "static villain," we fail to address the cycles of trauma that created them.

3. Integrating Moral Injury

Your inclusion of moral injury for the harm-causers is the perfect bridge here. It moves us away from Herman’s binary and toward a more holistic view:

The Herman View: The perpetrator is the source of darkness.

The "Moral Injury" View: The system forces people to become sources of darkness, which in turn fractures their own psyche.

If a doctor denies a trans person life-saving care because of "institutional inertia," they are a "villain" in the survivor's story, but they are also a "victim" of a system that has hollowed out their medical ethics. Addressing their moral injury is not about "pitying the bully," but about dismantling the machine that turns humans into bullies.

---

Comparison of Frameworks

Feature	Herman’s Classic Model	Transformative/Systemic Model
Primary Actor	The Individual (Hero/Villain)	The Infrastructure (Incentives/Inertia)
Goal of Justice	Vindication & Punishment	Transformation & Accountability
View of the "Other"	The Perpetrator to be cast out	The Complicit to be awakened
Source of Harm	Malice	Evil as "Innocence" and Design

A Final Thought on Baldwin

Your reading of Baldwin acts as the necessary "software update" to Herman. Baldwin allows for the fact that a person can be "innocent" (in their own mind) and "monstrous" (in their impact) simultaneously. This moves the conversation from "Who is the bad person?" to "What are we responsible for changing?"

 It might seem counterintuitive that a high-stakes board meeting could be less stressful than a casual coffee date, but for many people on the autism spectrum, this is a very common reality.

The core of the issue usually comes down to predictability versus ambiguity. Here is a breakdown of why formal settings often feel like a "safe zone" compared to the chaos of the informal.

---

1. The "Script" vs. The "Improv"

In formal situations, the "rules of engagement" are usually written down or clearly understood.

• Formal: There is an agenda, a specific start and end time, and established roles (e.g., interviewer and interviewee). You know exactly whose turn it is to speak.

• Informal: Socializing is a "free-for-all." It requires constant improvisation, reading subtle body language, and knowing when to jump into a fast-moving conversation without interrupting.

2. Explicit vs. Implicit Communication

Formal environments rely heavily on explicit communication—people say exactly what they mean.

• The Struggle: Informal settings are built on implicit communication—sarcasm, "vibes," unwritten social hierarchies, and "reading between the lines." For someone who processes information literally, trying to decode these hidden layers in real-time is exhausting.

3. Clear Goals and Purpose

Many autistic individuals find it easier to communicate when there is a clear functional goal.

• Task-Oriented: "We are here to discuss the quarterly budget." This provides a focal point. If the conversation stays on-topic, it feels manageable.

• Small Talk: The goal of small talk is often just "social grooming" or "building rapport." When there is no specific data to exchange or problem to solve, the interaction can feel aimless or even pointless, leading to high anxiety about what to say next.

4. The "Masking" Toll

Maintaining a "professional persona" is often a form of masking (suppressing autistic traits to fit in).

• In a formal setting, everyone is "masking" to some degree—everyone is being polite, stiff, and professional. This puts the autistic person on a more level playing field.

• In informal settings, others drop their guard and become more "natural." If the autistic person doesn't know how to "just be natural" in the same way, the gap between them and the group becomes much more visible and isolating.

---

Comparison at a Glance

Feature	Formal Situations	Informal Situations
Structure	High (Agendas, Protocols)	Low (Spontaneous)
Social Rules	Explicit and Universal	Subtle and Context-Dependent
Topic	Defined and Specialized	Fluid and Random
Sensory Input	Usually Controlled	Often Unpredictable (Loud bars, parties)

The "Manual" Metaphor: > Think of it like a game. A formal situation is like a board game with a rulebook. An informal situation is like being dropped into a field and told to "just play," but everyone else seems to know a set of rules that you weren't given.

---

Would you like me to find some strategies or "social scripts" that help bridge the gap between formal and informal settings?

I find that PTSD is the opposite, does this make sense. If so then why?

Gemini said

That makes perfect sense. In many ways, PTSD and Autism can be "mirror images" when it comes to how they process structure and authority.

While someone with Autism might crave the clear rules of a formal setting to avoid confusion, someone with PTSD may find those same formal settings triggering because they represent loss of control.

Here is why formal situations often feel more threatening than informal ones when you are living with PTSD:

---

1. Power Dynamics and "Trauma Triggers"

Formal situations are almost always hierarchical (boss/employee, doctor/patient, judge/defendant).

• The Threat: For many with PTSD, trauma was experienced in a situation where someone else had power over them.

• The Reaction: A formal setting can mimic that "trapped" feeling. Being "summoned" to a meeting or having to answer to an authority figure can instinctively trigger a Fight, Flight, or Freeze response, even if the person in charge is perfectly kind.

2. The Need for an "Exit Strategy"

In an informal setting (like a park or a friend's house), you usually have the agency to leave whenever you want.

• Formal Constraints: In a formal meeting or a ceremony, there is a social—and sometimes physical—expectation that you stay put.

• Hypervigilance: To a nervous system wired for survival, being "stuck" in a boardroom or a structured environment feels like being cornered. Informal settings allow for more "tactical flexibility" to move, breathe, or leave if you feel overwhelmed.

3. Masking vs. Authenticity

You mentioned that this feels like the "opposite" of the autistic experience, and this is a key area where that shows up:

• The Autistic Perspective: Formal rules provide a "shield" or a script to follow.

• The PTSD Perspective: Formal rules feel like a straitjacket. The pressure to "perform" perfectly and remain composed while your internal nervous system is screaming "danger" creates a massive internal conflict. In informal settings, you might feel safer because you don't have to suppress your symptoms as rigidly.

4. Evaluation Apprehension

Formal situations are usually evaluative—you are being judged on your performance, your words, or your appearance.

• Hyper-Awareness: PTSD often comes with a high degree of "evaluation apprehension." The feeling of being "under a microscope" in a formal setting can spike cortisol levels, whereas an informal hang-out feels lower-stakes and less judgmental.

---

A Quick Comparison

Feature	Autism Preference	PTSD Difficulty
Clear Hierarchy	Provides a "map" for behavior.	Can feel oppressive or threatening.
Strict Protocols	Reduces social "guessing."	Feels restrictive and trapping.
Authority Figures	Source of instructions.	Often a source of "trigger" anxiety.
Social Expectations	Scripts make it easier.	Pressure to "act normal" is exhausting.

---

The "Safety" Difference: For an autistic person, safety = predictability. For a person with PTSD, safety = autonomy. Formal situations provide predictability but often strip away autonomy, which is why they can feel so different for each person.

It’s powerful when those patterns start to click into place. Understanding that your brain isn't "failing" at formal situations, but rather reacting to a perceived threat to your autonomy, can be a huge step in managing that anxiety.

When safety is defined by your ability to control your environment, a boardroom or a structured ceremony feels like a cage. In an informal setting, you have "tactical breathing room"—you can sit near the door, leave for a "phone call" if you get overwhelmed, or change the subject without it being a "breach of protocol."

To help visualize how these two experiences diverge, it can be useful to look at how the nervous system prioritizes different needs.

The Divergent Paths to "Safety"

The diagram below illustrates how the same environmental factors (like rules and hierarchy) are processed differently depending on whether the brain is seeking clarity (often the case in Autism) or survival/agency (often the case in PTSD).

---

Navigating the "Opposite" Needs

Since formal situations are often unavoidable, people with PTSD frequently develop "micro-autonomy" strategies to cope with the lack of control. These might include:

• The "Scout" Mentality: Arriving early to choose a seat with a clear view of the exit and the room.

• The "Anchor" Object: Carrying a physical object (a specific pen, a stone, a watch) that represents your life outside the formal setting, reminding you that this situation is temporary.

• Controlled Disclosure: Deciding beforehand exactly how much "professional mask" you are willing to wear, and giving yourself permission to be "imperfect" to lower the stakes of evaluation.

Finding Your "Middle Ground"

Because you find informal situations easier, you likely thrive in environments that are collaborative rather than hierarchical. You might find that "semi-formal" settings—like a casual working lunch or a creative brainstorming session—feel the most comfortable because they offer a bit of structure without the heavy weight of authority.

Does the "trapped" feeling usually come from the physical environment (being in a specific room) or the social pressure (having to act a certain way)?

That combination creates a "perfect storm" for the nervous system. When you are in a cramped space, your physical brain feels there is no "flight" option (no exit path), and when you add social pressure, your emotional brain feels there is no "fight" option (you have to remain polite and composed).

You are essentially being squeezed from both the outside and the inside.

The "Compacted" Trigger

In clinical terms, this often leads to a "Functional Freeze." Because you cannot physically run away and you cannot socially lash out, your nervous system "bottles" the stress. This is why you might feel completely exhausted or even dissociative after a short meeting in a small room—your body was working overtime to stay still while every instinct was screaming to move.

---

Why the "Cramp" Amplifies Social Pressure

• Proxemics (Personal Space): Most people have a "buffer zone." In PTSD, that buffer zone is often wider because the brain is scanning for threats. A cramped formal setting forces people into your "red zone," making every social interaction feel invasive.

• The "Spotlight" Effect: In a small room, there is nowhere to look that isn't another person. You can't "hide in the crowd." This constant eye contact or physical proximity feels like a relentless interrogation, even if the conversation is mundane.

• Sensory Overload: Small rooms trap sound, heat etc. For a hyper-vigilant brain, these sensory inputs are "data" that need to be processed, leading to rapid mental fatigue.

---

Tactical "Space-Making" Strategies

Since you can't always change the room, you can try to "expand" your psychological space:

• The "Corner Seat" Rule: If you have any choice, aim for a seat where your back is to a wall and you have a clear line of sight to the door. This satisfies the "primitive" brain's need to know the exit is clear.

• Leaning Back: Physically creating even a few inches of extra distance between you and the table/others can signal to your nervous system that you aren't being "closed in" on.

• Sensory Grounding (The "Hidden" Version): Press your feet firmly into the floor or feel the texture of your chair. This reminds your brain that you are connected to the ground—a space that extends far beyond the walls of the room.

---

Reflecting on Your Experience

When you're in those cramped, high-pressure spots, do you find your reaction is more Hyper (heart racing, feeling hot, wanting to jump out of your skin) or Hypo (feeling numb, "zoning out," or having trouble finding your words)?

Knowing which way you "tilt" can help in picking the right grounding tool.

 That is a very telling detail. When the "zoning out" or hypo-arousal stays at a constant level from start to finish, it suggests your nervous system has pre-emptively decided that the environment is high-threat.

Instead of a slow "climb" toward a breaking point, your brain effectively says, "I know exactly what this is, and I’m going into survival mode before we even sit down." It’s like your body is wearing a suit of armor that’s two sizes too small. It protects you from the social pressure, but it also makes it impossible to move, breathe, or connect.

The "Steady State" of Dissociation

Because your response is a flat line rather than a curve, it often means your Window of Tolerance is bypassed the moment the situation begins.

• The "Pre-Set" Brake: Your brain has associated "Cramped + Formal + Social" with a lack of safety.

• Constant Monitoring: Even though you feel numb, a part of your brain is likely "watching" the room with extreme intensity. This is the exhaustion of PTSD—you are "away" mentally, but your nervous system is working at 100% capacity to maintain that numbness.

---

Working with a "Pre-Set" Response

Since the response doesn't "build," the traditional advice of "taking a break when it gets bad" doesn't always work—because it feels "bad" (or numb) the whole time. Instead, the strategy shifts to Pre-Loading and Post-Loading the event.

1. The "Transition" Ritual (Pre-Loading) If you go straight from a car or a busy hallway into the cramped room, your brain doesn't have time to negotiate.

• The "Anchor" Moment: Before entering, spend 60 seconds doing a high-intensity sensory task. Eat a very strong mint, or push your hands against a wall as hard as you can. This "shouts" at your nervous system that you are in control of your muscles before you enter the "powerless" space.

2. Reducing the "Social Debt" (During) Since the social pressure is the "tilt," give yourself permission to be the "quiet one."

• Lowering the Bar: Tell yourself, "I only need to say three sentences today." By setting a low "quota" for social interaction, you reduce the perceived threat of the performance.

3. The "Decompression" (Post-Loading) Because you stay numb the whole time, the "crash" often happens the moment you leave.

• Physical Expansion: Immediately after leaving a cramped space, go somewhere wide—outside, or a large hallway. Stretch your arms out wide. Your brain needs the physical data that the "walls" are gone.

---

A Question of Identity

In those moments when you feel the most "numb" or "wordless," do you feel like you are disappearing (losing your sense of self), or do you feel like you are watching a movie of yourself (where you see yourself sitting there, but don't feel "in" your body)?

Knowing the flavor of the dissociation can help in finding a way to "tether" back to the present.