To think ‘lived experience’ doesn’t make you automatically right?

[ThisFairMauveLemur]

You can have trauma and a bad take.

It's also a stupid phrase.

Doesn't it just mean 'experience'?

Well…it makes you right about the experience you had. Doesn’t necessarily make that experience representative though.

Too vague really.

"You can walk around the local town at midnight and not get mugged" = One person's experience.

"You can walk around the local town at midnight and get mugged" = Another person's experience.

Yes.

I couldn't even bring myself to type it in my earlier example.

I think it depends on the experience and perspective in question. If someone was to say "gender inequality no longer exists" then any 'lived experience' of gender inequality disproves the statement.
But someone who experiences sexism can't say "all men are terrible" just because of their own lived experience.

Yeah, it's anecdotal evidence, which used to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I think this sums it up well.

I understand. I am autistic. I complained about excessive noise in my area and that it was bothering me because I’m autistic. another person said they are autistic too (to invalidate my own experience), they listen to loud music, and I am making something out of nothing, essentially.

Yeah…. As opposed my ‘unlived’ experience (which presumably I didn’t experience) 😂

Of course you are right. You can give a good account of what happened to you but that doesn't mean you should be leading policy on that topic.

I get what you’re saying but I think ‘lived experience’ is often used to emphasise personal impact over general/academic knowledge. The issue is when it’s used to shut down all discussion, as if disagreeing means you’re denying someone else’s reality. That’s where it gets tricky.

Is this right up there with having attended the university of life? 🤢

Not even that. You can misjudge things and be mistaken.

How much dead experience can a person have?

I agree it doesn't make someone automatically right. Being supported by someone with a lived experience can be really beneficial though. Places like carers groups, mental health groups, groups for families of addicts, families of disabled children etc. People can feel a lot more comfortable and feel that they can get more understanding and better advice from someone who has been in a similar position.

I have a disabled child, prior to having my DC I supported families with children with disabilities. I thought from that experience I had a good understanding of what parenting a disabled child entailed. I now know that I didn't have a clue how difficult it was.

Kind of yeah - except now it gets brought into formal decision-making, which makes it even harder to challenge without looking heartless.

I suppose “lived experience” was coined to sound deeper than “I’ve been through it” but it’s starting to feel like a get out of jail free card in debates.

Isn't it just a wanky way of saying 'personal experience'? That's how I've slways understood it.

Yeah, agree with this.

I agree that it's a problem when it's used to shut down the conversation.

There is also an issue with who is speaking from this lived experience. Often the sort of people who end up sharing their experiences publicly - and even those who participate anonymously in lived experience research - are not representative of all of those with experience (for example I'm interested in how autistic lived experience voices are disproportionately those of very articulate autistic people rather than those who can hardly communicate and / or have learning disabilities too). Doesn't invalidate any of the voices but raises questions about how well any one person can speak on behalf of others, no matter how empathetic and knowledgeable they might be.

I don't think too big a bashlash against it is a good idea either though. Until pretty recently, almost all academic knowledge about things like mental health and neurodivergence was constructed by people without life experience and often with contempt for the views of those they were researching. Decades of ineffective and inhumane 'treatments' were the result. 'Shut up and take what we offer you / do what you're told because to challenge it just proves you're mad / dangerous / stupid' was the result.

Not easy to find a good balance but worth trying, I think.

Essentially. I think it was coined to distinguish from those with professional/academic experience of a topic and who were making decisions about the people with first hand "lived" experience of the topic.

See also "expert by experience".

Which is even worse. If you've experienced trauma then at best you are only an expert in your own experience and will likely have major blindspots when trying to advise anyone else.

Exactly. But somewhere along the way it got rebranded to sound like it trumps all evidence or opposing views. Bit of a slippery slope.

Someone might have said this already but it is used to distinguish between professional (or other) and lived experience. So I have lots of experience of certain mental health issues in a work capacity but someone with lived experience brings a different kind of experience. Expert by experience is the new term.

I think you need both expertise through experience and professional expertise to create the best service and outcomes. It’s instead of calling people ‘patients’ or ‘service users’ when you are working collaboratively with people. It sets a tone of respect and that there isn’t an ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Agree. I dislike the way its presented as a "gotcha" in any debate as if it had equal validity to actual data. It merits consideration but it is not scientific.

For example someone comes on to talk about how their child was unwell after taking a particular vaccine, other people tell them that it's highly likely to have been a coincidence as opposed to evidence that said vaccine is actually highly dangerous and there's a conspiracy to cover this up.

Then people pipe up to say the OP's "lived experience" should not be questioned.

The OP in this case is entitled to respect and compassion (and to respectfully have it explained that while her concerns are understandable, her hypothesis is wrong) but the facts are the facts.

It is attention seeking!

Just because you have had a baby doesn't make you a midwife and having cancer doesn't make you an oncologist