I'm going to break this down for you
First of all, I'm not arguing @break 's point at all because it's valid. The problem with this is only because we're so focused on the 'stronger' and 'weaker' moniker that it's really hard to see the true discussion here.
What's really the point of the article is that 'bad events harms you mentally and if you feel stronger after such events, it's only because you think you feel stronger'. In other words, negative events traumatizes you and leaves a mark on you and in effect, before you had the event, the mark doesn't exist, thus you are better off. This here is the true point here.
What break is saying is that afterwards, it's hard to tell whether or not the person will be able to move on or whether it will be a barrier in life from him. If he were able to move on, then he would be called 'stronger' not because he IS stronger, but because he's able to function normally afterwards as if the event never happened. On the other hand, if he had not moved on, the he would be called 'weaker' not because he IS weaker, but because he lets the event get on him and therefore impedes his progress.
All of these is what's called, living with 'whatever it is that happened to you'. You know how cancer patients are called 'living with cancer' or how Vietnam War veterans are called 'Living with Vietnam'? It's not like that they all just go up and kill themselves afterwards, but they are still able to function normally after the events. It's just that now, they have to live with something, like a dark past you want to bury, this in no way is helping to make them any 'stronger', right?
And confirmation bias comes when they think "I have gone through all that and I'm still here, that means I'm strong" which is what your life experiences is all about. However, you can't say that all those stress and injuries you have gone through has benefited you in some way right? You broke your back, and you said " It heals, it becomes as it was - or better" you're not even sure because you have no idea what you're talking about other than you're lying to yourself but you're also lying that you're lying to yourself.
I'm not saying that you are 'weaker' now in terms of "haha, you're a wimp cos u broke ur back!" but in terms of "Now you've had a broken back, that event will stay with you forever. You might learn from it and move on but the fact still stays, your back was broken. Now you are living with a once broken back". And again, this doesn't mean this haunts you utterly or anything like that, but let's say you break your back again, what will happen to you then? No one knows but one thing is certain: Now you are living with a back that is broken twice.
What if you keep going? Three times? Four times? Wow, you must be on your way to become The Hulk then because you get 'stronger' each time. Humans aren't like Saiyan unfortunately, they pretty much stay the same after a bad event but research shows that 'bad events are actually negative for you'. What happens is that you are able to minimize the damages but still, the damage was done. It's because you are able to minimize the damage that makes you think you're stronger.
Second point, just used your argument there. And besides, I've been using your argument all this time. I'm just grouping them as confirmation bias to make it simpler but perhaps it was unclear.
The reason why I didn't want to break them down is because it challenges your 'faith' but there I just did it.
For scientific proof, Articles are valid proof. This is true for any discussion. What would be another valid proof? Another article showing results that are of the contrary. This is how discussion works and not 'this happened to me and therefore proof' because you have nothing to back them up. But, if you say 'this happened to me and I have this research to back it up' then it's a valid proof.
Yes, as it had stood, my article and redwater's article are the only valid proof here. None of your arguments had been validated and therefore could not be accepted as proof. Which in turn, my 'proof' that you so viciously attacked is not 'proof' at all and is just like what your arguments had been all this time: bullshit.
It's only now that you have presented something that would qualify as proof: The article writer's comment and the whole comment section itself. NOW, I can work with your arguments because it's been validated and not just 'Believe me!', 'This article is not full truth!', 'Accept God!'.
So now I'm just gonna list things where I am stand corrected:
This article applies to everyone
it turns out:
Agreed. Individual differences exist in this as in practically every realm of human experience. Also agreed that every law in psychology has exceptions. Ours, after all, is a probabilistic, not deterministic science
Right, this article probably doesn't apply to everyone but you did miss the last part of his comment
One complication is that it's not easy to know whether someone who 'grew stronger through calamity' would have grown even stronger still had the calamity experience been replaced by an experience of hoy, proper nurture, or happiness--all else being equal.
Yes, this has been my point all along. And because it's science and due to the nature of it, if this is confirmed then it applies to everyone. BUT, science also studies probabilities and so when the study is confirmed, then it will become 'this probability applies to everyone'. And because science is the 'truth', not half-truths or maybe-truth, it is TRUTH, however it is not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Woah but wait a minute here, we're not done! Further studies was done AFTER this article which is redwater's article so we have to look into that also. This is how it turned out:
He suggested that those who go through difficult experiences are given a chance to develop an ability to cope with such situations in the future.
Yes, imagine a die. say five sides are 'you're fucked' and one side says 'you're superman'. That's the probability of you getting 'stronger' after going through a difficult experience. The only problem however, I just pulled the probability numbers out of my ass.
But still, the chance of getting stronger is there and because science is comparison of empirical data, the chance is 'low' because while a handful of people did become stronger, THE MAJORITY didn't. Until we know exactly on what happens INSIDE our brain (the related chems, etc.) we just don't know for sure but this doesn't automatically make this NOT TRUE.