STUB — comparative spoke. Target 1,600-2,000 words. Voice: Deaths of Nothing. AIO-resistant comparative query.

Outline

  • Open with patient who completed EMDR; reports symptom relief plus a strange new disorientation about who she is now
  • Two theories: incomplete processing (EMDR) vs incomplete narration (expressive writing); both can be true at different layers
  • The evidence asymmetry: EMDR strong RCT base, generic expressive writing thin in clinical PTSD
  • The bilateral-stimulation mechanism debate (Lee & Cuijpers 2013); the working-memory taxation account
  • The narrative-construction mechanism in expressive writing (Pennebaker): inhibition theory, fragmented memory reorganization
  • Why someone might benefit from EMDR for the trauma and from writing for the integration
  • The depth-psychological reading: EMDR closes the wound; writing names what was lost in the closure
  • WET as the third option: not really comparable to either, methodologically closest to PE
  • Sequencing recommendations: clinical severity first determines modality; integration phase opens the writing option

Out to: pillar; spoke 2 (WET); spoke 4 (vs CBT); dreams-after-trauma (EMDR-induced dream changes are clinically significant).

CTA

The writing app’s integration modules support post-EMDR consolidation work: https://app.briannuckols.com/.