I'm not arguing whether trauma info is useful. Of course it's useful.
But why does the Aces Connection lack real info on resilience building beyond trauma knowledge? And why is there no plan to minimize damage being done to those who DON'T benefit from neurobiology narratives? Those people who feel defeated by the "broken brain" message?
1. Trauma awareness is good, but what about practical solutions to prevent and deal with trauma? The ACEs connection community seems to have defined resilience as "trauma knowledge" instead of increasing defining resilience as "protective factors like coping skills, enhancing control, social inclusion, and increasing wellbeing." Why not a broader definition and a more robust program / toolkit? Awareness is one thing, action is another.
2. The neurobiology education around trauma helps some people BUT ALSO has great potential to do harm. The mental health stigma research field has lots of documentation around neurobiology narratives harming people. The ACES Connections harm management plan? "If people feel demoralized by hearing they have a broken brain, just tell them to build more resilience." Why not a realistic reckoning of harms vs. Benefits and a realistic harm minimization plan?
3. If the harm minimization plan is to tell people to "build resilience" but then see #1 there are no concrete tools to build resilience you have set people up in a blind alley. Awareness without action.