{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015993907083015995, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.814159292035399, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Narrative truth and putative child abuse.

Memories of early child abuse can be read in at least two distinct ways--as true accounts of an unspeakable event or as metaphors for a wide range of boundary violations which belong to both past and present. An actual memory of an early experience tends to fade unless repeatedly rehearsed; because abuse memories are inherently shameful, it seems reasonable to be skeptical of this kind of repetition and to be suspicious of their sudden emergence. An actual memory of an early experience would be told from the child's point of view and would probably contain many false starts, internal contradictions, and all the other earmarks of a confused memory that refer to an early happening; by contrast, a seamless account with a tight narrative structure and an almost total absence of doubt or irrelevant detail is almost certainly false. An actual memory would tend to have its own flavor and style; by contrast, a memory of child abuse that sounds too much like other memories is more likely a metaphor for something else. Therapists, lawyers, and other professionals need to be trained to listen metaphorically to these accounts, to be on guard against hearing them as concrete references to a particular time and place, and to beware of reinforcing them prematurely.