The field is called narrative psychology and it is about how we as humans use stories to make sense of the bits and bobs of information that circulate about our lives. In the first link the last paragraph mentions how the stories that we tell ourselves can shape our lives and our own experiences. Those who told stories emphasizing a partners negatives are more inclined to remember them as bad, and vice versa. It concludes that stories shape our thoughts and memories, or change how we live life. To that degree I can understand.
The other two start from that point but might make a few leaps and bounds that sound a lot crazy. Referencing how nominalization is one way that we arrest our experience of dynamic events. Though I know the term is in linguistics and refers to taking a verb or adjective and applying a nominalizing suffix to it or leaving it alone to make it a noun. She seems try to extent this to psychology by saying the term also refers to making dynamic processes static, which is doubtful. It goes on to say that suffering is crystalized through labeling them as symptoms, that the narrative of health, psychology, etc takes dynamic emotions and renders them as static things happening to a passive recipient. Even saying that medicine pulls us from the “hidden knowledge” that activates self healing mechanisms (crazy). The last two seem to boarder on defying reality, which I have heavy questions about.
Personally I think there is something to it, especially since we see things like this with constructing otherness. BUt to me it seems more like affecting our perception of things, I don’t think stories or narratives can do more like overwrite physics or such which seems to be what she is getting at. There is a difference between feeling unlimited and being unlimited.