Kat Lewin
PTSDizzle
Prompts: 1) Who are the sources who she introduces, and what is the purpose of each source?
2) What kind of questions (do we think) elicited the responses the interviewer got? Explaining questions or analysis questions?
Who, what, were, when – then why and how. I’m guessing we add the “so what”.
Knight describes event (shoe) (“What did you see?”)
Shot/reverse-shot w/ Knight (“How often do you think about it?”)
Knight (“Were you frustrated?”)
Smith about realization that they had PTSD (“What happened?”)
Narrator sets scene of psychiatrists coming, then introduces Lifton: What happened at event
Lifton discussing enormity of their findings
Smith talking about the psychiatrists’ reactions – underscores last quote, validates the concept of PTSD, bolstering it for the critical attacks she lists later
“Didn’t understand power of labels” – Psych talking about labeling Post-Vietnam Syndrome
Smith: Talking about VA’s rejecting label out of greed – hearing it from his voice allows the narrator not to sound like a douche
Psychiatrist in VA hospital: “Heard them say it was going to bankrupt…”
(Psychoanalysis big – people misdiagnosed)
Psychiatrist? Talking about misdiagnosis
Smith: Personal example of misdiagnosis – way emotional “he was one of us”. Suicide.
Hostage situation introduced – Smith: reenacting dialogue “You are going to get an education”
Professor Scott – “If you get it in manual, in one fell swoop” it exists
Smith discusses meeting: “If we recognize this, do you know what it’s going to cost the government? Bob, you don’t even want to have this discussion on op-ed page…”
Scott: Weigh the evidence
Smith?: changing name to PTSD
Interviewer lists symptoms
Smith: “Bob Spitzer says this exists”
Smith: needing data to support – “run rats like every other psychologist or go on your way”
Criticisms of over-use, but some have benefited – kick-back
Vet: “I don’t think about it as much as I used to”
Knight: exists in present-day, dramatizes situation to anchor it into our mind before there is controversy. Igniter: his diagnosis leads Spiegle to ask where his illness came from.
Smith: bridges to Knight because both are veterans; provides insider point of view. Human voice of the story. Passionate, angry – his motives are apparent through his voice.
Lifton: participant-observer; he’s an expert, so his amazement at the situation clues us into its enormity.
Art Blank: corroborates story Smith describes; gives fairly objective view of motives.
Scott: contemporary outsider, notes the history as a strategic move. Reserved, restrained view: no vested interests = no bias.
Knight is igniter; Smith, Lifton and Blank are the story; Scott explain significance of story. Tricky.
“What obstacles did you face? What did you have to go through to get to that place? What were the challenges?” – this works not just for hero stories: ask about theories, ask about discoveries.
Question motives. You can make questions about courses of action specific. Asking people to explain actions or behaviors is easier than asking them to explain emotions, and the emotions come out. No whining.
Who/what/when/where reload sensory information to the person you’re interviewing --
Always he is making references to that book he’s writing. And also. To his ninja skills.