Hello, and thanks for writing on this topic. It appears to me that many who research and “treat” PTSD, especially in cultures other than their own, seem to romanticize what they believe the impact of trauma SHOULD be. What results is a reluctance by the professional to admit that perhaps this concept of RESILIENCE is indeed central. In other words, an individual’s resilience (pre-existing, or obtained due to the trauma itself) is his best tool for dealing with the truly- as you said- uncategorizable ways past traumatic experiences impact his life. The implications of recognizing that, of course, do not look good in terms of professional growth for a PTSD “treatment” provider. To me, this article is a good example of ALMOST concluding that resilience is the most important (and most abundant) resource available to someone who has been through trauma… http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001371 …but then it seems they are too enamored by their notions of what trauma SHOULD do to a person, and therefore how necessary “treatment” must be. So instead they highlight all the supposed positive outcomes of THEIR interventions, and reasons for their necessary scaled-up implementation (which these countries cannot even afford to do). I work with refugees and I don’t know how many times American-born people say things like “I could never go through what they have been through and still have such a positive attitude.” What would such an admission from the mental health community do to the treatment paradigm for PTSD? Thanks again for writing. It’s an important topic and your perspective is very valuable.