Talk:Betrayal trauma

Types seem very arbitrary and possibly incomplete

The types are formatted like a definite list but seem arbitrary and possibly incomplete. I mean maybe I'm wrong but to me the definition already implies other types should easily be possible, like in any close relationship and dependency (which clearly doesn't require the other end to be an institution or romantic or yourself to be a child). Unless there is some clear research that it's just these types which would be strange, this should be written differently e.g. as some examples rather than some sort of definite type listing, that just doesn't seem to make too much sense.46.114.222.62 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix maybe would be to rename "Types" to "Common Types" (or why not rather "Common causes"? the naming seems a bit strange in overall). Even then it could use a footnote/citation who claims these are the common causes. 46.114.222.62 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear error I don’t know enough to fix

In “Background” the sentences:

“While BTT proposed that one lacking the ability to identify cheaters would be unable to evolve and thus be victim to natural selection, BTT provides a different theoretical framework. Positing that in the context of abusive betrayals in which escape is not a viable option, the cheater-detecting mechanism may be suppressed for the higher goal of survival.”

(aside from the punctuation error in sentence division) objectively make no sense. “BTT” clearly needs to be corrected to something else in one of the uses, but I don’t have the knowledge to identify which or with what.

Can someone knowledgeable about this make a fix? Lamerc (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]