<p>It may well be that the author miswrote, but if it was actually his intention to write &quot;maladaptive&quot; then the word <em>could</em> be interpreted as fitting its context in the following sense, highlighting detachment's abnormal or counter-intuitive aspect compared with 'normal' engagement:-</p>
<p>Maladaptive as in &quot;not adjusting adequately or appropriately to the environment or situation.&quot;  So 'appropriately' would be normal, engaged emotional response.  Since the subject here is 'detached' (non-response) it is 'maladaptive' from a naïve perspective, as in not responding 'normally'.</p>
<p><strong>Maladaptive.</strong> Latin <em>male</em> (adv.) &quot;badly&quot;; Late Latin <em>adaptare</em> &quot;to adjust,&quot; from <em>ad</em> &quot;to&quot; + <em>aptare</em> &quot;to join,&quot; from <em>aptus</em> &quot;fitted&quot;.  So, badly-fitted, abnormal, even if emotion detachment is actually for the best in a particular circumstance.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/maladaptation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Online Etymology Dictionary</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T18:14:31.343Z
"Normally" or "adequately or appropriately"? These are two different things. Sometimes what is "normal" (ie most common? default?) reaction might not be adequate or appropriate for given circumstances?
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T18:27:21.813Z
Yes, there's some possible ambiguity, but for a logical reading of the quote it can mean maladaptive as 'not what one would normally expect', but with a more detailed or nuanced view could be the quite the most appropriate response, on a higher level.  For instance a surgeon not freaking out when a patient's artery ruptures would be 'supernatural' calm; the natural response being freaking out.
Chris Degnen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T17:56:10.977Z
2022-12-24T11:16:56.833Z
2022-12-24T11:16:56.833Z
Chris Degnen
<p>Reading the Wikipedia article about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_detachment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Emotional detachment</a> raised my eyebrow.</p>
<p>It says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Emotional detachment is a <strong>maladaptive</strong> coping mechanism, which <strong>allows a person to react calmly to highly emotional circumstances</strong>. Emotional detachment in this sense is a <strong>decision to avoid engaging emotional connections, rather than an inability or difficulty in doing so</strong>, typically for personal, social, or other reasons. In this sense <strong>it can allow people to maintain boundaries, and avoid undesired impact by or upon others, related to emotional demands</strong>. As such it is a <strong>deliberate</strong> mental attitude which avoids engaging the emotions of others.</p>
<p>This detachment <strong>does not necessarily mean avoiding empathy</strong>; rather, it <strong>allows the person to rationally choose whether or not to be overwhelmed or manipulated by such feelings</strong>. Examples where this is used in a <strong>positive sense</strong> might include <strong>emotional boundary management, where a person avoids emotional levels of engagement related to people who are in some way emotionally overly demanding</strong>, such as difficult co-workers or relatives, or is adopted to aid the person in helping others.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Emphasis mine)</p>
<p>This is weird, to say the least. First Wikipedia claims that emotional detachment is a <em>maladaptive</em> coping mechanism. Then it immediately proceeds to list its numerous traits that seem decidedly positive, if not even needed in certain situations. According to this description one could reason that emotional detachment is all but necessary for anyone thrust into extreme circumstances, as it enables such a person to react properly to such situations. Wikipedia itself stresses that this detachment is not forced upon an individual, but rather it just gives them new options how to react; the individual may chose to use or not to use this new option, depending on situation.</p>
<p>In this light it would even seem to be an important <em>skill</em> all those in extreme professions (such as soldiers at war) must eventually learn, as well as all those who are thrust into toxic relationships.</p>
<p>Then how is it <em>maladaptive</em>?</p>
<p>Am I failing to understand something obvious or is Wikipedia spitting out BS, as it often does?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T04:20:53.000Z
Be aware that even Wikipedia themselves have highlighted at the top of the page you linked that *"This article has multiple issues."* Particularly, it lacks enough citations to back all claims within the article.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-13T04:30:07.013Z
While Wikipedia is useful as a guide, sometimes things get confused. I will write a more detailed answer when I have the time, but briefly, I think that a lot of the article is being confused with [compartmentalisation](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/19301/7604).
Chris Rogers
<emotion><dissociation>
Is emotional detachment a maladaptive coping mechanism, an important skill for people thrust into extreme situations or both?
gaazkam
# Is emotional detachment a maladaptive coping mechanism, an important skill for people thrust into extreme situations or both?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-11)

Reading the Wikipedia article about [Emotional detachment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_detachment) raised my eyebrow.

It says:

> Emotional detachment is a **maladaptive** coping mechanism, which **allows a person to react calmly to highly emotional circumstances**. Emotional detachment in this sense is a **decision to avoid engaging emotional connections, rather than an inability or difficulty in doing so**, typically for personal, social, or other reasons. In this sense **it can allow people to maintain boundaries, and avoid undesired impact by or upon others, related to emotional demands**. As such it is a **deliberate** mental attitude which avoids engaging the emotions of others.
>
> This detachment **does not necessarily mean avoiding empathy**; rather, it **allows the person to rationally choose whether or not to be overwhelmed or manipulated by such feelings**. Examples where this is used in a **positive sense** might include **emotional boundary management, where a person avoids emotional levels of engagement related to people who are in some way emotionally overly demanding**, such as difficult co-workers or relatives, or is adopted to aid the person in helping others.

(Emphasis mine)

This is weird, to say the least. First Wikipedia claims that emotional detachment is a *maladaptive* coping mechanism. Then it immediately proceeds to list its numerous traits that seem decidedly positive, if not even needed in certain situations. According to this description one could reason that emotional detachment is all but necessary for anyone thrust into extreme circumstances, as it enables such a person to react properly to such situations. Wikipedia itself stresses that this detachment is not forced upon an individual, but rather it just gives them new options how to react; the individual may chose to use or not to use this new option, depending on situation.

In this light it would even seem to be an important *skill* all those in extreme professions (such as soldiers at war) must eventually learn, as well as all those who are thrust into toxic relationships.

Then how is it *maladaptive*?

Am I failing to understand something obvious or is Wikipedia spitting out BS, as it often does?

**Tags:** emotion, dissociation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Be aware that even Wikipedia themselves have highlighted at the top of the page you linked that *"This article has multiple issues."* Particularly, it lacks enough citations to back all claims within the article.  
> **username_1**: While Wikipedia is useful as a guide, sometimes things get confused. I will write a more detailed answer when I have the time, but briefly, I think that a lot of the article is being confused with [compartmentalisation](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/19301/7604).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-12-17. Score: 0

It may well be that the author miswrote, but if it was actually his intention to write "maladaptive" then the word *could* be interpreted as fitting its context in the following sense, highlighting detachment's abnormal or counter-intuitive aspect compared with 'normal' engagement:-

Maladaptive as in "not adjusting adequately or appropriately to the environment or situation." So 'appropriately' would be normal, engaged emotional response. Since the subject here is 'detached' (non-response) it is 'maladaptive' from a naïve perspective, as in not responding 'normally'.

**Maladaptive.** Latin *male* (adv.) "badly"; Late Latin *adaptare* "to adjust," from *ad* "to" + *aptare* "to join," from *aptus* "fitted". So, badly-fitted, abnormal, even if emotion detachment is actually for the best in a particular circumstance.

* [Online Etymology Dictionary](https://www.etymonline.com/word/maladaptation)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "Normally" or "adequately or appropriately"? These are two different things. Sometimes what is "normal" (ie most common? default?) reaction might not be adequate or appropriate for given circumstances?  
> **username_2**: Yes, there's some possible ambiguity, but for a logical reading of the quote it can mean maladaptive as 'not what one would normally expect', but with a more detailed or nuanced view could be the quite the most appropriate response, on a higher level.  For instance a surgeon not freaking out when a patient's artery ruptures would be 'supernatural' calm; the natural response being freaking out.  

---

