Trauma = Damaged goods for life

What is the theory of psychology that says if you have had something traumatic happen at a young age you will be damaged goods for life(unable to be a healthy spouse, potentially sociopathic, etc)?
Ex. In a church divorce group I was in, one of the instructors believed that if someone comes from an alcoholic family it is implausible that they can one day maintain a healthy marriage. That kind of pissed some of us off but the instructor explained it passionately.
A counselor also told me once that if you adopt a kid from Russia say that is beyond 2 years old. they will most likely become a sociopath because of trauma in their environment.
So 1. what is this psychological school of thought/thinking called?
2. Also, what are you beliefs on these two scenarios I mentioned?

Seems to me that the mental health industry wants everything to be a life long chronic incurable but "treatable" problem.

MarkoRocko wrote:So 1. what is this psychological school of thought/thinking called?

I'm not sure that there is an exact school of thought on this. Or at least not one that I am aware of. From what you describe, it might just be these two people's personal opinions are getting in the way of their professional work.

MarkoRocko wrote:2. Also, what are you beliefs on these two scenarios I mentioned?

I believe that recovery is real for all people, serious trauma or not.

I think your counselor is a sociopath....

MarkoRocko wrote:1. what is this psychological school of thought/thinking called?
2. Also, what are you beliefs on these two scenarios I mentioned?

Hopeless helpless pre-determinism maybe? It is no school of thought I am familiar with. I’m not sure how beneficial it is to speak in these type of analogies but there is some truth the axiom that the trauma will leave one scarred for life. The issue is to what extent, if any, that scarring interferes with one’s life in the future.

Clearly some people do heal well from serious trauma. It appears there are a variety of ways this has been accomplished. Forgetting is not one of them.

With regard to the idea the an abused child is destined to become an abuser, while it is true that those who have suffered abuse are at higher risk to become abusers, that is by no means a certainty. There are many great stories about people who have emerged from tragic circumstances to become great advocates against the abuse they suffered. To say that a two years old whose brain is still developing can somehow already have been turned into a monster seems silly. More likely they will to some extent be protected by infantile amnesia. It’s not that they forgot. It’s that they never processed to memory to begin with. There is some evidence that effects of trauma exists in infants even where the memory never did but this is controversial and even if true these may be more like reflective memory and not traumatic per se.