Rebuilding Trust in Your Own Judgment After Years of Gaslighting

NARCISSISTIC ABUSE • June 11, 2026

It’s 2:11 a.m. in the cath lab call room and Elena’s scrubs smell like chlorhexidine and coffee. She’s a 38-year-old cardiologist who can thread a wire through a blocked artery in under a minute. She’s on her third read of the post-procedure orders—checking dosages she’s known cold since fellowship, scanning the EKG she could read in her sleep before she got married. Her attending texts, “All good?” and Elena’s thumb hovers. She knows it’s good. Still, something inside hisses, Are you sure? She deletes a sentence. Rewrites it. Deletes again. The patient is stable. Her hands are steady. Her confidence, once a quiet metronome, now flickers like a fluorescent bulb.

In my work with clients, this is where many driven and ambitious women land after gaslighting: in fluorescent-lit rooms at 2:11 a.m., doing what they’re excellent at, while their confidence unspools inside them.

What Is Gaslighting?

Let me name something clearly: gaslighting damages epistemic confidence—the trust you place in your own knowledge and your ability to know what you know. It’s not only that your ex or your boss contradicted you; it’s that their chronic pattern of denial, reversal, and minimization trained your nervous system to second-guess your perceptions, outsource your judgment to appease them, and brace for punishment if you “got it wrong.” Robin Stern, PhD, co-founder and senior advisor for the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and author of The Gaslight Effect, describes gaslighting as a relational dance: one person choreographs manipulation; the other learns to doubt themselves to maintain the bond ^[1]. Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD, originator of betrayal trauma theory, names a related phenomenon—betrayal blindness—when a person dependent on a relationship unconsciously ignores or doubts their own knowledge to preserve the tie ^[2]. When gaslighting meets betrayal blindness, you begin to live with a split inside: your body knows; your mouth says it doesn’t.

If you’ve left a narcissistic or antagonistic relationship and you’re asking, Who am I now? Why can’t I trust myself? you’re not alone. Often, the identity erosion that comes with gaslighting is part of broader narcissist recovery work and linked to betrayal trauma dynamics. And while journaling and reflection matter, the recovery I see work best is metacognitive: learning to notice your own thinking as it tries to twist on itself; building structures that hold your knowing steady while your nervous system recalibrates; deliberately practicing confidence in graduated steps. This sits alongside the deeper work of identity reconstruction, where you rebuild the self eroded by chronic relational invalidation.

This isn’t a character flaw. It’s an understandable adaptation to chronic manipulation. And it’s absolutely workable.

The Neurobiology / Science

When you’ve lived under relational conditions where your experience was denied or punished, your nervous system learns to detect danger in your own perceptions. Stephen Porges, PhD, explains that our nervous systems constantly scan for cues of safety and threat—a process he calls neuroception ^[5]. If “having an opinion” or “disagreeing” reliably led to conflict or coldness from a partner, a parent, or a boss, your neuroception may now flag internal certainty as unsafe. The signal isn’t cognitive; it’s body-first.

Bessel van der Kolk, MD, writes about how traumatic stress and chronic relational invalidation live in the body: in the set of your jaw, the heaviness behind your eyes, the way your shoulders lift when you’re about to speak a dissenting opinion in a meeting ^[4]. Over time, hypervigilance to relational threat narrows your “window of tolerance,” making day-to-day decisions feel high-stakes and physiologically charged—even when they’re not.

Here’s how gaslighting entwines with your neurobiology:

• Perception is challenged externally and thus internally. If someone repeatedly insists, “You’re remembering wrong,” your brain couples certainty with danger. In my consulting room, clients’ hearts race not when they’re unsure, but when they’re sure. The body anticipates relational punishment for certainty, so it tries to mute it. Porges would say your social engagement system shuts down and defensive states (fight/flight/freeze) emerge ^[5].

• State-dependent memory. Under stress, recall can be patchy. When you’re calm, last night’s argument is clear; when you’re braced for a text from your ex, details go fuzzy. That doesn’t mean you’re unreliable; it means your nervous system is prioritizing immediate safety, as van der Kolk and others note ^[4].

• Dissociation and micro-freezes. Janina Fisher, PhD, and Pat Ogden, PhD, illuminate how part of you may “freeze” to avoid punishment while another part keeps performing ^[6][7]. In a gaslit relationship, the freeze might be the part that swallows your protest and goes quiet while your executive part keeps producing results.

• Betrayal blindness. Freyd’s research shows that when survival depends on the relationship, you might not consciously “know what you know.” This isn’t willful denial; it’s protective neurobiology ^[2].

• Social context matters. Kate A. Manne, PhD, argues that misogyny functions as a social enforcement mechanism ^[3]. In cultures where women are expected to be agreeable and grateful for proximity to status, a woman’s confidence can be framed as arrogance and punished accordingly. That’s a macro-level gaslighting that sets the stage for micro-level manipulation.

Robin Stern emphasizes that gaslighting erodes you from the inside out by training you to mistrust your emotional intelligence ^[1]. This is why rebuilding confidence requires more than positive self-talk. Your recovery has to involve your body, your thinking-about-thinking, and the social contexts that either support or undermine your recalibration. Progress accelerates when we braid cognitive tools with somatic healing.

How Gaslighting Shows Up in Driven and Ambitious Women

Clients often arrive at my office carrying résumés that read like Olympic rosters—surgeon, founder, partner, executive—while inside, they’re living with relentless self-doubt that didn’t originate with them.

What I see consistently in my consulting room:

• Compulsive double- and triple-checking, especially in domains where they used to feel fluent.
• Outsourcing decisions they’re fully qualified to make—asking colleagues, friends, and the group chat about a choice that’s squarely within their purview.
• Over-apologizing: “Sorry, this might be wrong,” before offering a well-supported point.
• Decision paralysis around personal matters while remaining sharp at work—until the gaslighting creeps into professional spaces, too.
• A reflex to “neutralize” themselves—softer voice, smaller ask, hedging language—to avoid conflict.
• A feedback loop where the absence of immediate reassurance is interpreted as “I must be wrong.”
• Heightened startle or tension right before pressing “send,” “publish,” or “present,” as if certainty itself might trigger retaliation.

It’s 7:56 a.m. in a glass-walled conference room, fog pressing against the San Francisco skyline. Leila, a 42-year-old product executive, scrolls through her deck for the tenth time. Her metrics are clean; A/B tests are conclusive; the strategy is solid. She’s wearing the black blazer she used to call her armor. Slack pings with last-minute questions from a colleague who once said, “Are you sure you’re the right person to present this?” She’d laughed then and presented anyway. Today, when the CEO nods to her, she hears her ex overlay everything: You always overreact. You don’t remember right. Her pointer finger trembles on the clicker. “I might be totally off,” she says, then delivers a crisp, clear plan.

Many driven and ambitious women recognize this split: excellence on the outside, a nearly compulsive need to preface with disclaimers on the inside. If this is you, the work isn’t to power through and hope confidence returns. The work is to interrupt the loop that says certainty equals danger and re-teach your body and mind that your knowing is safe to have. This is intimately connected to somatic healing because the cues of danger are physiological as much as cognitive.

Related Clinical Topic — DARVO, Betrayal Blindness, and Why It’s Not “All in Your Head”

Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD, identified a pattern she named DARVO—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—to describe how perpetrators respond when confronted ^[2]. You say, “This hurt me.” They deny it happened, attack your credibility, and then claim they’re the real victim. When you’re repeatedly on the receiving end of DARVO, your brain learns that reality-telling leads to social pain. That learning can generalize far beyond the original relationship, including into leadership rooms and co-parenting apps.

Betrayal blindness, another concept Freyd introduced, helps explain why smart, capable women can’t “logic” themselves out of a gaslighting dynamic. When the relationship itself is a condition of safety—emotional, financial, familial—your mind may hide knowledge from you to keep you attached and safe ^[2]. After leaving, the veil lifts in layers. You begin to see what you couldn’t allow yourself to see before. That can be disorienting and it can feel like your memory is unreliable. It’s more accurate to say your system is prioritizing safety over coherence—until safety is reestablished through practices, people, and environments that don’t require self-erasure.

I include this line here because rebuilding trust in your own judgment isn’t a small project—it’s the reclamation of the instrument you’ll use to shape the rest of your life. And you’re allowed to take it seriously.

For many clients, these dynamics overlap with identity reconstruction—two tracks that often run in parallel.

Both/And: Your Doubt Was Trained Into You AND You Are Already Re-Learning to Trust

Both are true.

• Your doubt was trained into you. It’s not evidence that you’re inherently indecisive, fragile, or poor at judgment. It’s a conditioned response to relational manipulation. You adapted brilliantly to survive a dynamic that punished self-trust. Stern would call it being caught in the “gaslight tango” ^[1].

• You’re already re-learning to trust. If you’re reading this, you’ve taken steps: you left, or you created boundaries; you’ve started noticing the pattern; you’ve found language—the first building block of reclaiming reality. Relearning trust is less like flipping a switch and more like rebuilding strength after an injury. Micro-reps. Targeted practice. Progress you can measure in your log, in your body, and in trusted relationships that reflect you accurately.

Holding both truths relieves the shame that says, “I should be over this by now,” while also refusing helplessness that says, “I’ll never trust myself again.” In my office, I watch driven and ambitious women rebuild their internal authority all the time. It’s slow, and it’s possible.

The Systemic Lens: Why Driven Women Are Especially Vulnerable to Sophisticated Gaslighting

If we zoom out, there are cultural and systemic forces that make gaslighting more likely to land and stick for driven and ambitious women.

• Gendered expectations. Kate A. Manne, PhD, argues that misogyny polices women’s moral and social roles ^[3]. Assertiveness in a woman is often reframed as arrogance. Ambivalence is expected; certainty is penalized. In that context, a partner’s or boss’s “Are you sure?” doesn’t land on neutral ground—it lands on decades of social conditioning.

• Professional hierarchies. Medicine, law, tech, and finance often have steep power gradients. The very structures you navigated to build your career can normalize deference. For women (and women of color especially), speaking a different version of reality can be subtly punished through performance reviews, exclusion, or the “tone” critique. Sophisticated gaslighters thrive in these ambiguities.

• Early training in fawning. Many women learned, long before adulthood, that people-pleasing is safer than confrontation. In a culture that rewards caretaking and punishes boundary-setting, you might have entered adulthood already practiced at negating your own preferences to keep relationships calm. That conditioning becomes the kindling gaslighters ignite.

• Institutional betrayal. Freyd has also written about institutional betrayal—when systems (workplaces, universities, medical institutions) fail to respond to reports of harm ^[2]. If your institution didn’t “see” your experience, that compounds personal gaslighting with an organizational form.

• Social stories about “crazy exes.” The cultural script that frames women as dramatic or unstable can be weaponized to discredit your memory and your reports. It’s not your imagination; that script is real and powerful.

When we place your self-doubt in this larger frame, we see the work isn’t only internal. It’s relational and environmental—choosing communities that don’t require you to hemorrhage self-trust to belong. This is why social recalibration goes hand-in-hand with identity reconstruction. Your healing includes the deliberate curation of rooms where your clarity is welcomed, not punished.

How to Heal / Path Forward

You don’t rebuild trust in your own judgment by hoping confidence returns. You rebuild it by designing practices that restore your epistemic confidence—your trust in your knowing—while attending to your body and your relationships. Below is the approach I use with clients, braided across cognitive, somatic, and social layers. Use what resonates, adapt what doesn’t, and expect the work to be iterative.

1) The Reality-Check Log: Externalizing and Calibrating Your Knowing

Journaling matters, but gaslighting is relational, so your recovery tool needs to be more than private narrative. A reality-check log is a structured, external record you can consult when your mind starts to distort itself. It’s metacognitive: you’re tracking your thinking, not just your feelings ^[1].

Try this structure (secure note, spreadsheet, or a physical notebook you keep safe):

• Date/Time
• Situation: Stick to sensory facts.
• Immediate Perception: What did you think it meant?
• Body Signals: What did you feel in your body?
• Action Taken
• Outcome: What actually happened?
• Calibration: Accurate, partly accurate, or off?
• Notes for Next Time

Example:

• Situation: Ex texted “We should talk.”
• Immediate Perception: “They’re going to attack me.”
• Body Signals: Heart rate up, breath shallow.
• Outcome: They asked to trade weekends. No attack.
• Calibration: Partly accurate (threat anticipated), outcome neutral.
• Notes: Before responding, 5 slow exhales; text a friend to co-witness; wait 15 minutes.

Over weeks, this becomes your reality database. You’ll literally see patterns—where you’re exquisitely accurate, where old training still colors your read. This isn’t about proving you’re wrong or right; it’s about restoring proportionality. We’ll use this log alongside narcissist recovery work to decode manipulation tactics and shrink their influence.

Two upgrades:

• The “strong claim” highlight. When you write a sentence that feels solid (“I know the agreement was X”), highlight it. Later, check outcomes. You’re teaching your brain that strong claims aren’t inherently dangerous.

• The “quiet no” column. Track the moments you say no (even tiny ones). Over time, watch how few of them lead to the catastrophes your nervous system predicts. That gap is your confidence returning.

Make it practical: schedule a weekly 20-minute review of your log. Look for trends—what decisions you consistently calibrate well, which triggers reliably distort you, and how your body signals align with outcomes. That weekly data session is where evidence accumulates.

2) Body-Based Trust Signals: Interoception as Compass

The quickest route back to your own judgment runs through your body. When you were gaslit, your interoception—the sixth primary sense that reads internal signals—got overridden by someone else’s narrative. We want to reestablish contact.

Daily practice (2–5 minutes):

• Anchor: Feel where your body meets the chair; notice the air on your forearms.
• Scan: Move attention from forehead to jaw to throat to chest to belly to pelvis. Note tension, heat, hollowness, or ease.
• Label without story: “Jaw tight.” “Chest open.” “Stomach clenched.”
• Pair with micro-decisions: Ask a small, neutral question (tea or water? walk or stretch?) and notice the body response with each option.
• Record: In your log, add a column for “Body says.” Over time, you’ll map what yes and no feel like.

Practice sequences to build trust:

• Micro-decision match: Make a quick choice (Tier 1). Immediately note the felt sense and the outcome. Repeat three times in a day. This trains the association between felt sense and real-world consequence.
• The Pause-and-Name: When you feel a surge before speaking, pause for four seconds. Name the sensation internally—“tight chest, racing.” Then choose whether to speak. Naming interrupts automatic collapse into doubt.
• Grounding pair: If certainty triggers anxiety, shift attention to your feet for ten seconds, feel contact, push slightly into the floor, then return to the decision.

Porges would call this restoring your social engagement system ^[5]. Van der Kolk emphasizes that reclaiming bodily ownership is foundational ^[4]. This isn’t a substitute for thinking; it’s a support for it. Linking these practices with somatic healing can also expand your “window of tolerance,” making it easier to hold certainty without bracing.

3) Why Journaling Alone Is Not Enough

Journaling is valuable for self-reflection and meaning-making. But after gaslighting, your doubt is social and sensory. You need externalization you can revisit when your state shifts. Journaling alone can become an echo chamber for self-doubt.

Here’s what helps instead:

• Document facts of contentious events in real time (screenshots, dates, direct quotes).
• Share selectively with a co-witness (see next section). External co-witnessing disrupts the isolation gaslighters rely on ^[2].
• Use multiple modalities. Some clients record brief voice notes after tough interactions describing what happened and how their body felt.
• Combine with your reality-check log. You’re building a longitudinal picture of your accuracy over time.

Betrayal blindness means your mind may hide knowledge to protect you ^[2]. Externalized, co-held records help you keep faith with yourself when your nervous system dips.

4) When to Involve a Friend as Memory-Keeper

A friend-as-memory-keeper is a trusted person who agrees to hold a record with you and for you. This isn’t about triangulating every decision or giving your authority away; it’s about countering the isolation that helped gaslighting take root.

How to set it up:

• Choose wisely. Steady, nonjudgmental, not entangled with the gaslighter, and able to keep confidentiality.
• Make it explicit. “I’m doing recovery work after gaslighting. Sometimes I second-guess myself. Would you be willing to be a memory-keeper with me for 90 days? You don’t have to fix anything; just reflect back what you see and remind me of what I said when I was calm.”
• Set boundaries. Decide frequency, topics, and how you’ll pause if it becomes too much.
• Use code. In high-stress moments, a single emoji or code word can signal “Please reflect back my reality.”
• Review monthly. Look at your log and messages together. Notice your calibration improving.

Practical script you can use when asking a friend:

“Hey—quick ask. I’m working on rebuilding my trust in what I know after a tough relationship. Would you be willing to be a short-term memory-keeper? I’ll send a few messages when I’m foggy and you can just reflect back what you remember. No advice needed—just witness. We’ll try it for 90 days and then re-evaluate.”

This is especially helpful if you’re co-parenting with a gaslighting ex or navigating a workplace where DARVO is common. It’s a bridge toward internalizing trust again. The goal is that, over time, you rely less on the memory-keeper as your internal confidence strengthens.

5) The Role of a Therapist as Witness

In my consulting room, one of the most healing functions I serve is as a consistent witness. Not a judge, not an arbiter of truth, but a steady holder of your narrative when it’s been chronically invalidated.

A trauma-informed therapist can help you:

• Map patterns of gaslighting, DARVO, and coercive control ^[2].
• Identify how your nervous system signals danger and safety ^[5].
• Build metacognitive skills to notice when your mind tries to gaslight you on the gaslighter’s behalf ^[1].
• Rehearse confident communication in low-stakes ways before you use it in higher-stakes contexts.
• Integrate body-based work so your system can tolerate the sensations of certainty ^[4][5].
• Work through grief—of time lost, of the self you muted, of communities that didn’t see you—which is core to identity reconstruction.

Concrete therapy tasks that help:

• Reality-testing homework: Bring two items from your log each week. We’ll run them through “what happened / what you felt / outcome” until the pattern becomes visible.
• Role-play DARVO responses: Practice short, scripted exits and boundary statements until they feel procedural rather than emotional.
• Somatic titration: Gradual exposure to the body sensations of certainty, paired with regulation tools, so your window of tolerance widens incrementally.
• Narrative integration: Link the factual record with meaning-making so your story includes verifiable events, not only emotional valence.

Stern would call this stepping out of the “gaslight tango” ^[1]. You don’t have to do that alone.

6) Decision-Tiering: Rebuilding Judgment Through Micro-Experiments

Retrain trust by tiering decisions by risk and practicing in ascending order.

• Tier 1 (tiny stakes): What to eat, what to wear, which route to walk. Decide within 60 seconds. No polling. Record your body’s signals and the outcome. Celebrate the decision, not the content: “I chose.”
• Tier 2 (low stakes): Which task to do first, whether to accept a low-impact meeting invite, which book to read. Choose within five minutes. No more than one outside opinion if needed.
• Tier 3 (moderate stakes): Whether to give feedback to a colleague, whether to take a weekend trip. Use your reality-check log and, if necessary, your memory-keeper for a brief reflection. Decide within 24–48 hours.
• Tier 4 (high stakes): Job changes, housing, legal steps. Use your full toolset: therapist, co-witness, legal or financial counsel as appropriate. Set a deadline and honor it.

Two add-ons:

• Error budget. Decide how much imperfection you can tolerate this week (e.g., “I’m willing to be wrong twice on Tier 2 decisions”). This reframes mistakes as tuition.

• Post-decision debrief. After Tier 3 and 4 choices, log: What went well? What did you learn about your perception? What body signals were useful? This is confidence-by-evidence, not by cheerleading.

Real-world examples to practice with:

• A Tier 1 experiment: Pick your lunch within 45 seconds without consulting anyone. Note the felt sense, eat it, and rate your satisfaction. Repeat daily for a week.
• A Tier 2 experiment: Accept or decline a social invite within five minutes. Observe outcomes—did you miss something? Were you relieved? Use your log.
• A Tier 3 experiment: Send that short, factual piece of feedback to a direct report using a script practiced in therapy. Debrief with your memory-keeper.

Over time, Tier 1 and Tier 2 choices become automatic again, and Tier 3 feels less like standing at a cliff’s edge.

7) Decision Fasts from Crowdsourcing

For 30 days, avoid crowdsourcing everyday choices. Tell your closest friends you’re practicing. This isn’t about isolation; it’s about interrupting a habit that became a safety strategy. During the fast, lean on your reality-check log and body-based signals. If you need outside input, pick one person and set a time limit. You can also designate specific windows for “outside input only” to keep the habit contained. The point isn’t to perform independence; it’s to rewire reliance on your own compass.

8) Scripts for Real-Time Reality Protection

When a known gaslighter (ex-partner, difficult boss) starts a familiar pattern:

• Name your reality to yourself: “This is DARVO” ^[2]. “My body is reacting; that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.”
• Bound the conversation: “I’m happy to discuss this at 2 p.m. tomorrow,” or “I need to consult the documentation and get back to you.”
• Use written follow-ups: “Per our conversation, here’s what we agreed…” This anchors reality and reduces space for revisionism.
• Exit when needed: “I’m ending this conversation now,” and actually end it.

Short scripts to practice:

• To a gaslighter’s denial: “I hear your version. My record shows X. Let’s pause and revisit with the timeline.”
• To DARVO: “I’m not engaging in accusations. I’ll document what happened and share when I’m calm.”
• To the workplace reviser: “Please confirm in writing so we have the same record.”

Phrase red flags to note in your log: “You’re too sensitive,” “That never happened,” “Everyone thinks you’re overreacting,” “If you cared, you’d…” These aren’t disagreements; they’re erasers. Meet erasers with boundaries, documentation, and—when necessary—distance.

9) Rebuilding Through Communities That Don’t Require Self-Erasure

Part of trusting yourself again is choosing relationships and environments that don’t make you fight to keep your reality. This can include:

• Friendships where your no is respected.
• Workplaces where disagreement is welcomed and debated in good faith.
• Support groups (trauma-informed, well-facilitated) where your story is met with care and precision.
• Mentors who reflect your clarity back to you instead of poking holes for sport.

Practical ways to curate your social ecology:

• Audit your calendar for two weeks. Note which people consistently leave you depleted and which leave you energized. Start pruning the first group.
• Seek one new community that centers respect and clear communication—a writing group, a supervised support group, a peer coaching cohort.
• Ask for feedback from a trusted mentor in a structured way: “Please reflect back what you see in these three items; I’m working on trusting my read.”

It’s nearly impossible to restore self-trust while bathing in environments that punish it. As you do this, you’ll notice how identity reconstruction is enacted through these choices. If a space consistently requires you to mute your perception, that’s data.

10) Expect Relapses in Doubt—and Don’t Pathologize Them

There will be days when certainty feels far away. A stray comment from a supervisor might send you spiraling. A co-parenting exchange might flood your body with old panic. This doesn’t mean you’ve failed or that the gaslighter was right. It means you’re human, and your nervous system is doing what it learned ^[4][5].

On those days:

• Narrow your focus to Tier 1 and Tier 2 decisions.
• Revisit your reality-check log to remind yourself of your calibration trend.
• Ask your memory-keeper to reflect back what they’ve seen you do.
• Bring the data to therapy and let yourself be witnessed.
• Do a five-minute grounding routine and then do one small, clear action: send one email, make one call, pick a meal.

You’re not starting from zero every time. You’re continuing a practice that returns you to yourself—again and again—until it’s second nature.

Warmly, I want to remind you: gaslighting was an attack on your way of knowing. You survived by adapting. Now you’re learning to know again—not in opposition to anyone else, but in partnership with your mind and body. That’s the heart of narcissist recovery after relational harm. What I see consistently is this: the woman who couldn’t choose dinner six months ago is leading in rooms she once shrank in. Not because she forced herself to be loud, but because she learned to hear her own voice and treat it as trustworthy.

Sources Consulted

^[1]: Stern, R. (2007). The Gaslight Effect. New York: Morgan Road Books. Robin Stern, PhD, co-founder and senior advisor, Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence; associate research scientist, Yale Child Study Center; licensed psychoanalyst. Yale profile: https://medicine.yale.edu/profile/robin-stern/

^[2]: Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD, Professor Emerit of Psychology, University of Oregon; originator of betrayal trauma, DARVO, and institutional betrayal. Research overview: https://www.jjfreyd.com/about-research

^[3]: Manne, K. (2018). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. New York: Oxford University Press. Kate A. Manne, PhD, Professor, Cornell University, Sage School of Philosophy. Cornell profile: https://philosophy.cornell.edu/kate-manne

^[4]: van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Viking.

^[5]: Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. New York: W. W. Norton.

^[6]: Fisher, J. (2017). Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors: Overcoming Internal Self-Alienation. New York: Routledge.

^[7]: Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy. New York: W. W. Norton.

Medical Disclaimer

Medical Disclaimer