DID and PTSD
mix...@my-dejanews.com
The 'switching' into an alter is a natural response for people with DID to a
stress trigger and is a coping mechanism developed during childhood. The
'switching' from one division of consciousness to another helped the person
deal with the overwhelming stimuli of traumatic events. However, as adults,
these people perhaps do not encounter the previous trauma for which this
mechanism was developed. Having learned this response to stress, when
encountering stress as adults, they use 'switching' as the coping mechanism.
People having developed DID, did so in response to very frightening and
traumatic events that occured over a period of time. As time passed in their
lives, they were left with the problems of PTSD. Hypervigilance is a
condition of PTSD, so when faced with a moderate stressor the person
exaggerates the stress and could respond by switching.
My opinion is that while it is important to explore the dynamics of the alter
system, early in therapy the issues of the PTSD need to be addressed.
Mixant.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mix...@my-dejanews.com
The 'switching' into an alter is a natural response for people with DID to a
stress trigger and is a coping mechanism developed during childhood. The
'switching' from one division of consciousness to another helped the person
deal with the overwhelming stimuli of traumatic events. However, as adults,
these people perhaps do not encounter the previous trauma for which this
mechanism was developed. Having learned this response to stress, when
encountering stress as adults, they use 'switching' as the coping mechanism.
People having developed DID, did so in response to very frightening and
traumatic events that occured over a period of time. As time passed in their
lives, they were left with the problems of PTSD. Hypervigilance is a
condition of PTSD, so when faced with a moderate stressor the person
exaggerates the stress and could respond by switching.
My opinion is that while it is important to explore the dynamics of the alter
system, early in therapy the issues of the PTSD need to be addressed.
Mad Man.
Karen Lofstrom
: The 'switching' into an alter is a natural response for people with
: DID to a stress trigger and is a coping mechanism developed during
: childhood.
Here we go round again. I think veterans of this newsgroup have seen
a number of eruptions of the DID/MPD controversy. Perhaps it will
suffice to say that many therapists and researchers are quite
skeptical of this theory of DID, and see the condition as a learned
"idiom of distress" that has become popular in the last few decades.
I'm not going to expand on this unless there's interest. This horse
may well be thoroughly dead.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
contents may shift during handling
Ann Sheehan
hypervigilence, stress, lack of sleep, thye startle response, etc all
need to be addressed. Often the dx is DIDs "secondary" to PTSD.
However, while nearly all DIDs have PTSD, not all who suffer from PTSD
have DIDs
Ann
Sisyphus
>
> ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rfva0
> >Suffice to say, that the only groups of people who are "skeptical"
> >about this obvious illness are the False Memory Syndrome proponents.
> >You have to quit being fooled by these people, Karen.
> >Doesn't reflect well on you.
>
> You are wrong. I see no evidence for DID, and a lot of evidence
> against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none observed
> in children, none reported in previous centuries (amazing for such
> a spectacular disorder), and on and on. The reports of symptoms
> just do not hold up and there are more parsimonious explanations.
>
> I argue these facts, and I am not associated with, nor have I ever
> even corresponded with the False Memory Foundation. I do
> believe, though, that people like Elizabeth Loftus make good,
> scientific sense.
Dan,
First of all let me state that I haven't seen a case of DID.
But I have trouble coming up with an explanation for the
evidence presented by respected clinicians. Do you think
it's iatrogenic?
TIA,
Norm
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
in intro. psychology textbooks for years. Respected does not
mean correct.
Iatrogenic? There seems to be more evidence for that than for
any actual "multiple personalities." I have been struck, over the
years, by the fact that psychotherapists who treat and believe in
DID have such huge numbers of individuals with the disorder.
There has to be a baseline, and it just can't be high enough to
account for the phenomenon. I remember one "well respected"
therapist whose large therapy practice was made up of over 80%
DID diagnoses, almost all of them from a small town and surrounding
rural catchment area.
But none of those people had been reported by neighbors, teachers,
spouses, etc., of having any signs of separate "identities."
Sounds iatrogenic to me.
Sisyphus wrote in message <35DCCD...@ibm.net>...
mix...@my-dejanews.com
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> .......many therapists and researchers are quite skeptical of this theory of DID, >and see the condition as a learned "idiom of distress" that has become >popular in the last few decades.
>
Karen,
Please explain what is meant by 'a learned "idiom of distress"' and meant by
'has become popular'.
I intended to discuss the best initial approach to treatment for these people
and not to debate the diagnosis of DID. Clearly, the act of 'switching'
whatever it may be is triggered by stress. The state of mind that these
people enter into is disruptive and intrusive. Regardless of the label we
give to the process, these people still need to be treated. My opinion was to
treat the symptoms of PTSD first.
Mixant
mix...@my-dejanews.com
It is my understanding that a therapist should try to teach a patient with
PTSD how to acquire the skill of relaxation (to learn the control of
anxiety). By 'lack of sleep', I believe you are referring to the occurence of
nightmares including body flashbacks. The person does not sleep well and will
experiences elevated levels of stress. The therapist might work with a
physician to prescribe medication to help the person relax and sleep better.
In article <6ria8c$l4g$2...@as4100c.javanet.com>,
ashe...@massed.net (Ann Sheehan) wrote:
> I totally agree with your whole assessment. The issues of
> hypervigilence, stress, lack of sleep, thye startle response, etc all
> need to be addressed. Often the dx is DIDs "secondary" to PTSD.
> However, while nearly all DIDs have PTSD, not all who suffer from PTSD
> have DIDs
>
> Ann
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
mix...@my-dejanews.com
sisy...@ibm.net wrote:
> First of all let me state that I haven't seen a case of DID.
> But I have trouble coming up with an explanation for the
> evidence presented by respected clinicians. Do you think
> it's iatrogenic?
>
There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
Find a textbook and read.
Mixant
cc...@tir.com
Donna
In article <6rim2j$q54$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
"Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "Respected psychologists" also included the "Ship of fools"
> in intro. psychology textbooks for years. Respected does not
> mean correct.
>
> Iatrogenic? There seems to be more evidence for that than for
> any actual "multiple personalities." I have been struck, over the
> years, by the fact that psychotherapists who treat and believe in
> DID have such huge numbers of individuals with the disorder.
>
> There has to be a baseline, and it just can't be high enough to
> account for the phenomenon. I remember one "well respected"
> therapist whose large therapy practice was made up of over 80%
> DID diagnoses, almost all of them from a small town and surrounding
> rural catchment area.
>
> But none of those people had been reported by neighbors, teachers,
> spouses, etc., of having any signs of separate "identities."
>
> Sounds iatrogenic to me.
>
> Sisyphus wrote in message <35DCCD...@ibm.net>...
>
> >
> >Dan,
> >First of all let me state that I haven't seen a case of DID.
> >But I have trouble coming up with an explanation for the
> >evidence presented by respected clinicians. Do you think
> >it's iatrogenic?
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
cc...@tir.com
mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I intended to discuss the best initial approach to treatment for these people
> and not to debate the diagnosis of DID. Clearly, the act of 'switching'
> whatever it may be is triggered by stress. The state of mind that these
> people enter into is disruptive and intrusive. Regardless of the label we
> give to the process, these people still need to be treated. My opinion was to
> treat the symptoms of PTSD first
>
Since it has been proven effective, I would suggest that the therapist tell
the client they will only speak to the core personality (not the "alters")
and focus on the person's real life, although certainly more mundane,
problems.
Donna
Nancy Alvarado
GTV3419 wrote in message
<199808211715...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, "Dan L. Rogers,
Ph.D."
><dlro...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>
>>You are wrong. I see no evidence for DID, and a lot of evidence
>>against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none observed
>>in children, none reported in previous centuries (amazing for such
>>a spectacular disorder), and on and on. The reports of symptoms
>>just do not hold up and there are more parsimonious explanations.
>
>Childhood Antecedents of MPD, Washington, DC: Am Psychiatric Press, 1985,
has
>listed 7 reasons for the difficulty of identifying childhood MPD:
>
>*No index of suspicion by professionals
>*Symptoms suggest some other disorder
>*Fluctuation of symptoms suggests other disorders
>*Other explanations for behavior invoked, such as lying (boy, do I
personally
> remember that one!)
>*Child is unaware of his or her circumstances and/or condition
>*Child withholds data
>*Childhood MPD has different features
>
>From my understanding, DID identified in children can be cured with
short-term
>psychotherapy.
>
>>I argue these facts, and I am not associated with, nor have I ever
>>even corresponded with the False Memory Foundation. I do
>>believe, though, that people like Elizabeth Loftus make good,
>>scientific sense.
>
know
>how to hypertext but the message ID is <3570d...@206.170.198.12> from
>5/30/98) one of her posts from 5/30/98 re MPD:
>
>"Anyone who believes MPD is bogus should read Ludwig, A., Brandsma, J.,
>Wilbur, C., Bendfeldt, F., & Jameson, D. (1972). "The Objective Study of a
>Multiple Personality," Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 298-310. Then
>explain how the uneducated male criminal with a low-normal IQ who is the
>subject of the case study could have produced the results reported on the
>various memory, personality, and physiological tests, solely as the result
>of social demand. In order to fake such results the individual would have
>had to know what to fake. The results shown are entirely consistent with
>those shown by amnesia victims and differ in subtle ways that the subject
>could not have known how to fake and that the experimenter could not have
>cued or coached. For example, how would the subject or the experimenter
>know how to produce similarities in associative priming across
>subpersonalities, but differences in recall? When naive simulators are
>given such tests, they show differences in both measures because they do
not
>understand that priming is unaffected by hypnosis or amnesia. Why wouldn't
>this subject have faked differences on both tests? This is an example of
>the kind of difficulty involved, and by no means the only one. Spanos does
>not discuss this kind of evidence despite his 850 references."
>
>Gail
I did say this, but I also discussed Schacter's remarks on MPD (maybe not in
the post Gail has quoted here). He says that true MPD is very rare, that he
believes it is associated with head injury or brain dysfunction, and that
real cases of MPD (e.g., appropriately diagnosed cases) also show severe
behavioral problems and unmistakable symptoms in childhood. He
differentiates real MPD from iatrogenic or hysterical MPD. I do not have
the clinical experience that Schacter does, but my reading of the literature
is that there are both real and mistaken cases of MPD. The mistaken cases
arising from the causes Spanos and others have discussed. This makes the
situation confusing for everyone. I agree with Dan Rogers' remarks and
those who support the existence of MPD as well, because they are talking
about two different groups of people.
Schacter says on pg 237 of Searching for Memory:
"In the mid-1980s, a collaborator of mine, the cognitive psychologist Mary
Jo Nissen, came across a remarkable patient: a middle-aged woman who
apparently harbored multiple personalities. In fact, Dr. Nissen said, she
appeared to have twenty-two such personalities, ranging from a five-year-old
girl to an abrasive forty-five-year-old male...Dr. Nissen wanted to know
whether I would be interested in collaborating with her on a study of the
patient's memory. I knew that amensias could present in unusual ways, and I
was also aware that experts consider amnesia to be a hallmark of
multiple-personality disorder...Yet I had just finished writing a series of
articles about simulated amnesia, and immediately developed serious concerns
that a patient with twenty-two personalities could well be faking the
disorder. I was also aware that diagnoses of multiple personalities had been
rising rapidly in recent years. Many critics believe that the condition is
the product of suggestible patients, misinformed diagnoses, and incompetent
therapy involving suggestive techniques such as hypnosis...I worried that
Dr. nissen's patient might have been seen by a clinician who was too eager
to diagnose this exotic condition.
"But Dr. Nissen could find no motive for the patient to fake the disorder,
nor any evidence that she was doing so. Besides, the woman had a relatively
low IQ and did not seem capable of the enormous mental effort that would be
involved in keeping straight twenty-two feigned personalities. Dr. Nissen
felt confident that the clinical diagnosis of multiple personality had been
arrived at carefully and cautiously. Hypnosis had not been used to elicit
personalities. The patient had numerous gaps in her memory and often failed
to remember where she had been or what she had done. And her history
contained signs and symptoms of a disturbed identity that dated back to
childhood. Beginning at around the age of five or six, the patient had
displayed unpredictable bursts of aggressive, violent behavior. [this was
also true of the patient in the case I cited in Gail's quote above] Family
members noted that she referred to herself by different names during these
outbursts. Her attendance at school was irregular and her behavior erratic.
These problems are similar to those typically observed in children with
dissociative disorders. They have severe behavior problems that are noted by
family members, teachers, and others; they are frequently in trouble; they
receive a variety of psychiatric diagnoses from professionals; and they are
often referred to as pathological liars or persistent daydreamers. A person
with a true dissociative disorder leaves behind a trail of serious
pathology, a trail that was easy to follow in Dr. Nissen's patient."
Later, on pg 240-241 Schacter says:
"At the time we were studying IC [a MPD patient], in late 1987 and early
1988, many clinicians and researchers involved with multiple-perosnality
patients believed that childhood sexual abuse is closely associated with the
development of dissociated identities. Several papers had been published
linking dissociative disorders with reports of childhood sexual abuse, and
we had no reason to doubt them. In the years since then, however, this
issue has become considerably more contentious. With the emergence in the
early 1990s of the controversy over recovered memories of forgotten
childhood sexual abuse, critics have claimed that memories of sexual abuse
in patients with dissociated identities may be the product of the same
flawed therapy that helps to create the multiple personalities in the first
place. The early papers associating multiple personalities with childhood
sexual abuse, the critics charge, are based on patients' uncorroborated
recollections of abuse. If these memories are recovered during therapy that
uses suggestive techniques, then it is possible that they are
illusory...[discussion of increasingly outlandish recollections and 1995
Frontline documentary deleted]...I suspect that there are many such
patients, and believe that we should heed the critics' warnings that
suggestive therapies can help to create both multiple personalities and
illusory memories of sexual abuse. If ill-conceived ideas about the
widespread incidence of multiple personality are leading some therapists
unwittingly to elicit dissociated identities during therapy, this is a
tragedy for both the patients and the therapists.
"As a memory researcher, I would have grave concerns about studying a
patient whose personalities emerged for the first time in therapy,
especially if suggestive techniques like hypnosis had been used. But it
seems unlikely that all instances of dissociated identities come about this
way. In cases such as the two I studied, dissociation was evident prior to
any therapy and hypnosis was not used to elicit personalities. And recent
research has provided external corroboration of sexual abuse in several
patients with multiple personalities...Social and cultural factors no doubt
do play a role in shaping the kinds of memory loss that are seen in patients
with dissociated identities (or fugues and psychogenic amnesias), even when
blatantly suggestive therapy has not occurred. The disorder may constitute a
specific idiom of distress for some deeply troubled people who have been
suitably prepared by the cultural environment. But unless one wants to argue
that all of these amnesias are consciously faked...some of these cases may
still provide important clues concerning memory's fragile power [memory is
the topic of the book in which these comments appear]."
He then discusses neurological mechanisms behind functional or psychogenic
amnesias, with reference to Damasio's idea about binding codes.
I think his point about childhood indicators is particularly relevant to
what Gail says (and consistent with much of it). Even if dissociative
disorder was not diagnosed in childhood, there needs to have been some
indicator of serious childhood distress present. There is no such evidence
in many cases of iatrogenic or misdiagnosed MPD.
Nancy
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>I still don't understand how a disorder can be simultaneously
>iatrogenically induced and non-existent.
The claim of some people is that DID is produced by trauma, usually
childhood trauma. If the disorder is iatrogenic, it is instead produced
by the process of or forces within therapy or diagnosis.
>Btw, I'm not so sure about your claim regarding "earlier centuries" --
>first, many diagnoses well established today weren't known to earlier
>centuries -- just think of the catch-all that "hysteria" represented for
>the longest time. Accounts of people acting as if they had different
>personalities are certainly around, even though their conceptual framing
>(demonic possession, for instance) would differ so much as to make them
>hard to recognize.
"Hysteria" is a bad example for you to use, because it has been known,
both by symptoms and by similar names, for over 2,000 years.
But what I was talking about was description of symptoms in earlier
writings. Hippocrates said nothing about symptoms resembling
"multiple personality," not, to my knowledge, did any other major
medical writer.
The train of thought of the skeptic, then, goes like this: 1) If DID is
the
result of trauma, and 2) trauma has been a problem for millennia, then
3) DID should have been a problem for millennia and at a rate similar
to the rate that is now claimed and 4) with the same spectacular
presentation as is now claimed. 5) However, there are no such
reports before, not as recently as Freud and not in ancient years,
either. 6) Therefore, the only assertion that can be wrong is that DID
is the result of trauma, and 7) another causality must be claimed.
Now, I personally would find it more interesting if, in fact, DID were
found to be a real disorder with an identifiable cause. But, to date, the
proof is not found. I also hold a sincere hope that intelligent life
will be found that originates away from Earth, but this has also not
been found. And so on for extrasensory perception, etc. I am open
to being convinced, but not by the poor evidence that is presented
by so many people.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
>Find a textbook and read.
>
>Mixant
You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence.
What is the reference? I have never seen such an "excellent
explanation," and even then, a mere explanation, without proof,
would be of limited value.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
GTV3419 wrote in message
<199808211714...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...wrote:
>>I have been struck, over the
>>years, by the fact that psychotherapists who treat and believe in
>>DID have such huge numbers of individuals with the disorder.
>Specialization, I'm sure, accounts for some of this.
That's a testable hypothesis. So far, it does not hold up. For example,
the rate of individuals who complain of DID symptoms when they first
present to the therapist is not so high. The majority are only aware
of such symptoms after they have been in therapy.
More importantly, their friends, family, coworkers, etc., rarely are able
to report any of the symptoms being there before the individual has
been in therapy where their disorder is discovered.
>>There has to be a baseline, and it just can't be high enough to
>>account for the phenomenon. I remember one "well respected"
>>therapist whose large therapy practice was made up of over 80%
>>DID diagnoses, almost all of them from a small town and surrounding
>>rural catchment area.
>I am aware that there has been a tremendous increase in the diagnoses, as
>evidenced in this example. It seems I remember some change in the
diagnostic
>criterion where the requirement of amnesia was removed. IMPO, that in
itself
>would increase the numbers as something as innocuous as 'feeling out of
sorts'
>could be considered 'personalities'.
>I think it was Silke who brought up an interesting point some months ago
that
>if therapists can so easily 'cause' 'multiple personality' in a few
sessions,
>it does not seem unreasonable that parents also can as they have very
>informative *years* to work with.
>Gail
I always appreciate Silke's thinking and expression. I disagree,
nonetheless,
that these are analogous. First, there is no disagreement that parents can
cause problems, nor is there any disagreement that therapists can cause
problems.
But that is not where the claims begin. The claim, for the existence of
DID, is that it is caused by trauma. If it is, then it should not become
obvious only during therapy and only with therapists who believe in
DID. If it is obvious only then, then it is still a function of those
particular therapists. It it is obvious at other time, it should be
reported in other situations. But it has not been reliably reported
outside of therapy with the believers.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
GTV3419 wrote in message
>Silke has addressed the occurrence in previous centuries. R. Kluft, in
>Childhood Antecedents of MPD, Washington, DC: Am Psychiatric Press, 1985,
has
>listed 7 reasons for the difficulty of identifying childhood MPD:
>
>*No index of suspicion by professionals
>*Symptoms suggest some other disorder
>*Fluctuation of symptoms suggests other disorders
>*Other explanations for behavior invoked, such as lying (boy, do I
personally
> remember that one!)
>*Child is unaware of his or her circumstances and/or condition
>*Child withholds data
>*Childhood MPD has different features
I agree that those would all be difficulties. But there simply have not
been
any accululation of descriptions of behaviors. The difficulties would be
problems in identification over the centuries. I'm talking about the lack
of descriptions of behaviors.
Nobody identified gas plasmas a thousand years ago, but they did
describe phenomena of that sort. Not so, really, for DID.
John Clark
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D. schrieb:
> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>
> >I still don't understand how a disorder can be simultaneously
> >iatrogenically induced and non-existent.
>
> The claim of some people is that DID is produced by trauma, usually
> childhood trauma. If the disorder is iatrogenic, it is instead produced
> by the process of or forces within therapy or diagnosis.
Hence it should be projected proxy Muenchhausen disorder (PPMD),
ie, 'what my therapist thinks I'm suffereing from and wanting to match
that expectation'... the proxy comes from the iatros, who wouldn't be
treating someone if they weren't disordered...
John Clark
mix...@my-dejanews.com schrieb:
> In article <6rbc8v$6...@mochi.lava.net>,
> lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> > .......many therapists and researchers are quite skeptical of this theory of DID, >and see the condition as a learned "idiom of distress" that has become >popular in the last few decades.
> >
>
> Karen,
>
> Please explain what is meant by 'a learned "idiom of distress"' and meant by
> 'has become popular'.
A theory that a person 'needs' something more that just 'I have problems' and
augments their problem set with certain patterns of behavior. These patterns
are 'learned' by a sequence of interations with therapists, and were the
client finds that the therapists respond 'positively' to patterns like 'multiple
personality' better, than say, 'I have trouble with my spouse'.
The therapist of course having hear 14 zillion spouse problem stories, latches
on to the 'odd' multiple personality 'story' and enhances the response...
karmagrrl
>
> >Suffice to say, that the only groups of people who are "skeptical"
> >about this obvious illness are the False Memory Syndrome proponents.
> >You have to quit being fooled by these people, Karen.
> >Doesn't reflect well on you.
>
> against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none observed
> in children, none reported in previous centuries (amazing for such
> a spectacular disorder), and on and on. The reports of symptoms
> just do not hold up and there are more parsimonious explanations.
your "evidence" being "none reported in previous centuries" would rule out just
about every modern clinical diagnosis today, mental or physical!
as for no DID observed in children, my therapist also treats children and some of
those children have DID. by going over my childhood history, we've been able to
figure out that i had DID as a child, but it wasn't a common diagnosis back then,
nor was it particularly watched for. so it wouldn't have been diagnosed. neither
would IC (interstitial cystitis) but i've been diagnosed with it now and the doctor
noted that my IC symptoms appeared as early as 4 years old. it IS possible to
diagnose a disorder years later simply because there are new names and classes and
terminologies for disorders popping up constantly, as the science of medicine and
psychotherapy changes and grows. progress, ya know ;)
this is the first i've heard of DID not being believed to be a legit diagnosis. but
then again, 10 years ago people thought CFIDS was just the "yuppie flu" or
malingering, and now they've found a DNA urinary marker for it.
peace,
karmagrrl
Karen Lofstrom
: Please explain what is meant by 'a learned "idiom of distress"' and
: meant by 'has become popular'.
As I understand it -- and bear in mind that I'm neither a mental
health professional nor a medical anthropologist -- there are some
mental illnesses that occur in every human population. All over the
world, there are people with schizophrenia, people who are depressed,
people with obsessive-compulsive disorders, etc. Some of these
disorders seem to occur with the same frequency no what the culture,
which seems to be strong evidence for some biological basis for these
disorders. Some of them occur in every population, but seem to vary
in frequency, which might argue some combination of biological and
cultural factors.
However, there are some disorders that only occur in specific
cultures. In some Asian cultures, men develop koro, a fear that the
penis is retracting into the body. In Tonga, some people are believed
to be fakamahaki or avea, made sick or possessed by spirits, and can
only be cured by a spirit healer. In Australia, aborigines with
certain symptoms believe that they've been "boned" by a vindictive
sorcerer. The people suffering these disorders aren't "making up"
their distress; they're just experiencing and interpreting
psychological or physical distress in the categories that they've
learned from their culture. When they claim to be suffering from
these disorders, they can expect other people to accept their
diagnosis and treat them in certain culturally-accepted ways.
The epidemiology of MPD or DID strongly suggests that it's a disease
like koro -- people learn about it, learn how they're supposed to
experience and display their symptoms, and do so. Cases of MPD/DID
were extremely rare until after the publication of _Three Faces of
Eve_ and _Sybil_ and the release of movies made from those books.
MPD/DID diagnoses multiplied many-fold in the US, but are still rare
outside the US. A few therapists are responsible for most of the
diagnoses. All this suggests that that MPD has become a newly
culturally-acceptable "idiom of distress".
Some researchers tend to dismiss people with MPD/DID as fakers. IMHO,
this isn't quite fair. They aren't "faking" any more than someone with
koro is faking. There's real suffering there, looking for a way to
express itself.
Karen Lofstrom
: I think it was Silke who brought up an interesting point some months
: ago that if therapists can so easily 'cause' 'multiple personality' in
: a few sessions, it does not seem unreasonable that parents also can as
: they have very informative *years* to work with.
Therapists can evoke "multiple personalities" by teaching clients to
interpret changing moods and conflicting impulses as separate
personalities. If clients come into therapy primed with information
about MPD/DID picked up from friends and media, the process is that
much easier.
I've been reading the literature on MPD/DID, including many case
histories and biographies, and haven't come across a case yet where
parents did anything like this. I did see a number of cases where
parents were extremely punitive and demanding. The child learned to
perform, to put up a facade of happiness and competence no matter what
he/she was feeling inside. The child developed a facade personality
and dealt with the suppressed anger, fear, depression by denying it.
In the right circumstances, when a therapist is trying to bring these
feelings into consciousness, it may be that the patient projects these
feelings as yet another facade or multiple facades, ones that will
please the therapist.
So it could be said that the parents taught the child to perform and
please, and that this same process is being brought into play by the
therapist.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta hifo ki liku 'o tou siale
Kakala namamu ke tui tavale
Karen Lofstrom
: The train of thought of the skeptic, then, goes like this: 1) If DID is
: the
: result of trauma, and 2) trauma has been a problem for millennia, then
: 3) DID should have been a problem for millennia and at a rate similar
: to the rate that is now claimed and 4) with the same spectacular
: presentation as is now claimed. 5) However, there are no such
: reports before, not as recently as Freud and not in ancient years,
: either.
However, shamanism and spirit possession are known world-wide and
could well be considered functional equivalents of MPD/DID, as Spanos
points out.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bool bool bool! It makes me laugh just to "trink" about it.
Ann Sheehan
dlro...@frontiernet.net says...
>
>
>ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rfva0
>>Suffice to say, that the only groups of people who are "skeptical"
>>about this obvious illness are the False Memory Syndrome proponents.
>>You have to quit being fooled by these people, Karen.
>>Doesn't reflect well on you.
>
>
>You are wrong. I see no evidence for DID, and a lot of evidence
>against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none
observed
>in children, none reported in previous centuries
Sorry, there is along history of the "disease" in medical history, but
called by many different names.
Ann
Ann Sheehan
I agree that even if people were "faking it" (and I would wager that
would be rare since over a period of time their stories would fall
apart) the vary act of faking such a disorder (not a disease) would
indicate a cry for help and therefore, someone wiht DID's symptoms
should be treated. Treating the PTSD component, as suggested by
another poster, would be as good a place to start as any.
>The epidemiology of MPD or DID strongly suggests that it's a disease
>like koro -- people learn about it, learn how they're supposed to
>experience and display their symptoms, and do so. Cases of MPD/DID
>were extremely rare until after the publication of _Three Faces of
>Eve_ and _Sybil_ and the release of movies made from those books.
>MPD/DID diagnoses multiplied many-fold in the US, but are still rare
>outside the US. A few therapists are responsible for most of the
>diagnoses. All this suggests that that MPD has become a newly
>culturally-acceptable "idiom of distress".
While I agree with the premise that DIDs has become "popular" since
the publication of books and release of movies, there is evidence in
past case histories of people "presenting " these symptoms. Without
movies and books and a widely read, educated audience, the case
histories of earlier examples simply weren't known except amongst
professionals.
>
>Some researchers tend to dismiss people with MPD/DID as fakers.
Researchers are not therapists and not all cases of MPD/DIDs are
iatrogenically induced. I find some researchers often look for "proof"
what they already believe.
IMHO,
>this isn't quite fair. They aren't "faking" any more than someone with
>koro is faking. There's real suffering there, looking for a way to
>express itself.
Again, I totally agree.
Ann>
Ann Sheehan
>>Btw, I'm not so sure about your claim regarding "earlier centuries"
--
>>first, many diagnoses well established today weren't known to earlier
>>centuries -- just think of the catch-all that "hysteria" represented
for
>>the longest time. Accounts of people acting as if they had different
>>personalities are certainly around, even though their conceptual
framing
>>(demonic possession, for instance) would differ so much as to make
them
>>hard to recognize.
And then they were thrown into "bedlam" type institutions or hidden
away or the family kept the "secrets" of the misbehaviors. As with
many who did "strange" things.>
>
>
>The train of thought of the skeptic, then, goes like this: 1) If DID
is
>the
>result of trauma, and 2) trauma has been a problem for millennia, then
>3) DID should have been a problem for millennia and at a rate similar
>to the rate that is now claimed and 4) with the same spectacular
>presentation as is now claimed. 5) However, there are no such
>reports before, not as recently as Freud and not in ancient years,
>either. 6) Therefore, the only assertion that can be wrong is that
DID
>is the result of trauma, and 7) another causality must be claimed.
I don't follow your logic at all. DIDs has no other cause, as far as I
know and from much reading and research, except trauma in early
childhood. Just because it wasn't reported as such long before the
effects of childhood trauma was known, doen't help you with your case.
See my comment above, about hiding things within the fmily and
"throw-away" people.
>
Now, I personally would find it more interesting if, in fact, DID were
>found to be a real disorder with an identifiable cause. But, to date,
the
>proof is not found.
Ask anyone who deals with DIDs on a personal, daily basis if the proof
has not been found.
Ann
Ann Sheehan
lazy to go hunt up my materials upstairs (as my medical condition makes
stair climbing difficult), but I knew Kluft had addressed the issue in
his books.
Ann
Ann Sheehan
practice, didn't recognize the switching when it occurred.
While there may be cases of iatrogenically induced DIDs, I don't see
how anyone could keep up with such an "act" for any period of time.
Issues such as "lost time" would fall apart as "stories" became more
complicated. Of course, seeing a therapist unethical enuf to induce
such behavior, and then reinforce it, would prolong the act.
There is no secondary gain to such a dx (altho, there is surely a
primary gain of having one's therapist spend a lot of time and energy,
the initial "thrill" of being part of a select group, etc.) But, once
dx'd, life is never the same. You are branded by insurance, often
laughed at, plied with drug "cures" etc. The situation must be hidden,
if possible, at work and if it becomes known in that melieu, then life
can be pure hell and options limited.
In fact, probably the truest cases of DIDs are those people who would
not advertise they had such a dx. It is not something to feel proud of
as it also implies a rather nasty childhood.
Ann Sheehan
(name of book) in your post? If so, could you post the source again?
>I think his point about childhood indicators is particularly relevant
to
>what Gail says (and consistent with much of it). Even if dissociative
>disorder was not diagnosed in childhood, there needs to have been some
>indicator of serious childhood distress present. There is no such
evidence
>in many cases of iatrogenic or misdiagnosed MPD.
>
>Nancy
I think this is a very important point, indeed.
Ann>
>
>
>
Kimberly Barnard
Ann Sheehan wrote in message <6rmekv$m9i$9...@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>Nancy: this made for read intersting reading: did I miss the source
>(name of book) in your post? If so, could you post the source again?
>>I think his point about childhood indicators is particularly relevant
>to
>>what Gail says (and consistent with much of it). Even if dissociative
>>disorder was not diagnosed in childhood, there needs to have been some
>>indicator of serious childhood distress present. There is no such
>evidence
>>in many cases of iatrogenic or misdiagnosed MPD.
>>
>>Nancy
>I think this is a very important point, indeed.
>Ann>
That's an interesting point. At the age of 14 (1974), I was given
psychological testing after an overdose of nembutal during my parent's
divorce. There were a lot of interesting things said on the report, one of
which was "fluctuation in cognitive functioning that does not seem to be
related to an organic condition..." My mom yanked me out of treatment for
'depression', saying there was nothing wrong with me, which was fine with me
at the time. It was nearly 20 years later that I was diagnosed with
dissociative disorder.
--
Kym
Nancy Alvarado
Ann Sheehan wrote in message <6rmekv$m9i$9...@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>Nancy: this made for read intersting reading: did I miss the source
>(name of book) in your post? If so, could you post the source again?
It was all from Daniel Schacter's Searching for Memory. Page numbers are in
the post.
Nancy
ka...@my-dejanews.com
"Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rfva0
>Suffice to say, that the only groups of people who are "skeptical"
>about this obvious illness are the False Memory Syndrome proponents.
>You have to quit being fooled by these people, Karen.
>Doesn't reflect well on you.
D> You are wrong. I see no evidence for DID, and a lot of evidence
> against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none observed
> in children, none reported in previous centuries (amazing for such
> a spectacular disorder), and on and on. The reports of symptoms
> just do not hold up and there are more parsimonious explanations.
Ah ha! I have found it:
From Memory Trauma Treatment and the Law, 1998 by Sheflin,
Hammond and Brown, pg. 405
"While proponents of the iagrogenesis hypothesis have argued that
patients simulate DID in order to seek attention, Gleaves cites a
number of empirical studies that have shown no significant
relationship between DID and histrionic personality and other
attention-seeking traits. In response to the hypothesis that DID
is a by-product of using hypnosis, Gleaves cites a study by Ross,
Norton, and Wozney (1989) demonstrating that only 27% of the DID
patients had been hypnotized prior to establishing the DID diagnosis.
Moreover, the iatrogenesis argument failed to take into account
that many of these patients had a long history of dissociative
symptoms long before the DID was made. It is illogical to argue that
a treatment created the disorder when evidence shows in many cases
that the condition preceded treatment. Another study (Putnam et al,
1986) revealed no signicicant differences in the clinical features
between those DID patients with whom hypnosis was or was not used
in the treatment.
While proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis see no relationship
between DID and a history of childhood abuse, Gleaves says,
"Researchers of recent studies have consistently found a strong
association between DID and forms of childhood trauma" (52). Gleaves
points out that proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis fail to
understand the DID treatment literature. According to their view,
"MPD patients come to believe that their alter identities are real
personalities rather than self-generated fantasies" (Spanos, 1994,
p. 144, cited in Gleaves, p.47) Gleaves says that Spano's view is:
at odds with what is recommended in the clinical literature on
DID...according to this treatment literature, one of the goals of
treatment for DID is to help the individual understand that the
alters are in fact self-generated, not to convince the patient that
alters are real people or personalities. (p.47)
Gleaves believes that the treatment strategy recommended by
proponents of the DID iatrogenesis hypothesis, namely, to discourage
alter behavior and recollections of abuse, may be harmful:
...proponents recommend that alters should be ignored (e.g. McHugh,
1993). The argument is based on the logic that to speak of alters
as real would reify them in the mind of a confused and suggestible
patient, thus worsening his or her condition...What is critical to
understand is that acknowleding a patient with DID to have genuine
experience of alters as real people or entities is not the same as
stating that alters are actually real people or entities. An analogy
with another mental disorder may help clarify the distinction. Many
individuals with anorexia nervosa state that they experience themselves
as obese, even though they are emaciated. To tell such a patient
that one understands and believes that he or she expereinces the
self in that fashion is not the same as understanding that he or
she is truly obese...Most mental health professionals would probably
argue that it would be inappropriate to tell a patient with anorexia
nervosa that one simply does not believe his or her perceptions
(p. 48)
Gleaves argues that not addressing the DID condition witha specific
treatment may result in interminable treatment. He calls this
phenomenon "iatrogenesis by neglect" (p. 54)
Based on a careful review of a large body of scientific data, Gleaves
concludes:
...the data do not support the hypothesis that assessment or treatment
procedures are responsible for the creation of DID. State-of-the-art
assessment of dissociative disorders is consistent in format with that
of other mental disorders and recent prevalence studies and large-scale
investigations on the clinical features of the disorder have been
based on the use of such assessment procedures. Furthermore, available
data do not support the commonly stated hypothesis that hypnosis can
create or signifiacntly alter the clinical presentatin of DID. Although
some of the features of DID can be role-played, these data do not
meaningfully address the etiology of any mental disorder. Criticisms
of the treatment of dissocaitie disorders appear to be based on many
misconceptions regarding how treatment is actually conducted. Patients
with DID also appear to have experienced their symptoms most of their
lives, well before they were in treatment for a dissociative disorder
(P. 49)
Our own conclusions regarding the DID iatrogenesis hypothesis match
those drawn by David Gleaves in his critical review. In addition, as
experts in hypnosis, we wish to remind the reader that a similar
debate occurred in the hypnosis field several decades ago. The debate
was about the reality of trance phenomena. Barber and Spanos argued
that trance behavior occurred in response to a particular set of
social demands, so the hypnotic subject could be motivated to respond
to the particular hypnotic task without a formal trance induction
ceremony. According to what became know as the task motivational
perspective, hypnotic behavior was interpreted as simulated or
role-taking behavior in response to the social demands of the hypnotic
context, and the condition of trance did not exist.
Subsequent research using more sophisticated desigins demonstrated
that hypnotic behavior is a mixture of both a trance condition and
a task-motivated response to the social demands of the hypnotic
situation. Thus, while particular behaviors manifested during trance
occur clearly in response to the social context, the underlying
capacity for trance and its specific manifestations as part of the
overall response are clearly not functions of social role-playing.
Role-playing theory accounts for part but not the primary part of
overall trance behavior (cf. Brown and Frommm, 1986, for a review).
Likewise, role-playing theory may account for part of DID alter
behavior but not the primary features of the condition. Proponents
of the DID iatrogenesis argument have made the same mistake previously
made about hypnosis, namely, reducing all the variance of the overall
effect of a complex phenomena to a single dimension while ignoring
the primary condition in question.
In our opinion the analogy drawn from hypnosis research informs
us about a more balanced view of DID: DID represents an underlying
psychiatric condition wherein some but not all alter behaviors and
some but not all descriptions of experience occur in response to the
demands of the social context. (Piper 1994) see "mutual shaping"
as an illustration of iatrogenesis of the condition. We see mutual
shaping as an example of capitalizing on the creativity of both
patient and therapist in response to the overall goals of treatment,
namely, memory and representational integration. The clinical
objective is to shape alter behavior in an informed way toward
these goals and to avoid the creation of therapeutically harmful
alter effects (Fine, 1989b). To argue that the DID condition does
not exist or that alter behavior is never a response to social
influence completely ignores how similar questions have been raised
and sufficiently answered in other domains of science."
--
Karen,
Curio...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/senate/6496
Wenatchee Sex Ring
Karen Lofstrom
: There is no secondary gain to such a dx (altho, there is surely a
: primary gain of having one's therapist spend a lot of time and energy,
: the initial "thrill" of being part of a select group, etc.) But, once
: dx'd, life is never the same. You are branded by insurance, often
: laughed at, plied with drug "cures" etc. The situation must be hidden,
: if possible, at work and if it becomes known in that melieu, then life
: can be pure hell and options limited.
I think I'd have to differ here. Often, the secondary gain is control
over intimate relationships. The patient reveals himself/herself to
family and SO and asks for belief in the reality of the other
personalities and the switching. The family/SO is then expected to
respond to the alters presented as if they were indeed interacting
with a person of the age and gender claimed. The alters presented
often seem to be cute, innocent, needy children, who of course should
be treated with the same love and indulgence that one would give a
real child this age. Or, they're feisty adolescent "protectors" who
can get angry but must be tolerated because of their age and because
they're just trying to protect the cute innnocent alters.
I think the strongest example of this is someone I've observed online,
who believes that she has "babies" inside. These babies *need*
constant mothering, attention, love. Real people are constantly
frustrating, because they do not give the babies what they need. At
one point, this person reported asking her therapist to treat her
without pay, as proof that the therapist really loved her babies.
IMHO, those babies are a desperate attempt at controlling the
situation, at insuring that this person gets the attention and love
she feels she needs to survive.
I don't think this is true of everyone diagnosed with DID, but I've
certainly observed this in real life and in many cases I've seen
online.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A product of Happy People's Recycled Food Cooperative Division Three
-kludge-
lpacker
BTW, I just went and checked out your web site. While I don't
appreciate some of the editorializing on it, I commend you on trying
to pull together a lot of cases and information for people who are
interested in the issue.
Might I make a suggestion? I was particularly interested in the
Loftus deposition. It is hard to read stuff (or at least I found it
hard to read) when you bold-face so much stuff. I would actually
prefer to read the *entire* deposition and without any added boldface.
Is there any way for you to zip up the entire deposition as a
downloadable file for those who prefer to read entire documents and
not just selected parts?
Leslie
John Clark
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D. wrote:
> I agree that those would all be difficulties. But there simply have not
> been
> any accululation of descriptions of behaviors. The difficulties would be
> problems in identification over the centuries. I'm talking about the lack
> of descriptions of behaviors.
Yes, unlike finding a fragment of hair, and finding indications of poisoning,
one would take ravings of people thinking others are out to kill them,
and suggest paranoid type disorders...
There's a movie out called 'The Madness of King George', you know
the last king we had in the 13 colonies... and perhaps the last one England
had as well... Anyway, I recall there being some thought that he suffered
from some disease that disordered behavior as well as had certain physical
'signs', something like blue urine.
Other 'favorites' are ergot on rye seed, producing Saint Vitus's
symptoms, etc. So, it would be very difficult to weed out these
'physically' based symptoms from what we can do with today's
behavior and tests for various diseases.
John Clark
Ann Sheehan wrote:
> Hi Karen:
>
> I agree that even if people were "faking it" (and I would wager that
> would be rare since over a period of time their stories would fall
> apart) the vary act of faking such a disorder (not a disease) would
> indicate a cry for help and therefore, someone wiht DID's symptoms
> should be treated. Treating the PTSD component, as suggested by
> another poster, would be as good a place to start as any.
If you don't know 'where the symptoms originate from' how can you
say this or that set of symptoms are worthy of treatment, while others
are not.
As far as I've seen posted no one has claimed that people 'fake it'. But
rather a set of consistent symptoms develop and continue. The fact
that some one can continue a set of symptoms, consistently over
time, is no more astonishing than someone who has learned to ride
a bicycle, or any other patterned behavior...
In fact, if I were to take a really primitive 'learned' model, namely
the behavior is rewarded by attention, the fact that behavior changes
perhaps means that the individual senses more 'reward' in the
changed pattern than the original.
Again using this crude model, if a person had a larger than 'normal'
need for attention, and found that as time passed, the current behavior
didn't result in that need being fullfilled, they may change, perhaps
in more extreme behavior to gain the attention.
So, if the point of therapy is to end therapy, a client could at some
time become aware that eventually they will not be getting attention
from the therapist and introduce more 'interesting' behavior to maintain
the theraputic setting...
How's that for a theory...
Kimberly Barnard
Karen Lofstrom wrote in message <6rncmn$q...@mochi.lava.net>...
>Ann Sheehan (ashe...@massed.net) wrote:
>: There is no secondary gain to such a dx (altho, there is surely a
>: primary gain of having one's therapist spend a lot of time and energy,
>: the initial "thrill" of being part of a select group, etc.) But, once
>: dx'd, life is never the same. You are branded by insurance, often
>: laughed at, plied with drug "cures" etc. The situation must be hidden,
>: if possible, at work and if it becomes known in that melieu, then life
>: can be pure hell and options limited.
It's exciting, hopeful, and horrifying all at the same time.
>I think I'd have to differ here. Often, the secondary gain is control
>over intimate relationships. The patient reveals himself/herself to
>family and SO and asks for belief in the reality of the other
>personalities and the switching. The family/SO is then expected to
>respond to the alters presented as if they were indeed interacting
>with a person of the age and gender claimed. The alters presented
>often seem to be cute, innocent, needy children, who of course should
>be treated with the same love and indulgence that one would give a
>real child this age.
Or, they're feisty adolescent "protectors" who
>can get angry but must be tolerated because of their age and because
>they're just trying to protect the cute innnocent alters.
No-- adolescent alters need to know their limits, as they are children too.
The goal is for the adults in the system to attend to the needs of the
children and to model appropriate interpersonal behavior.
This all sounds more like axis II stuff than the actual DID. Axis II
disorders such as BPD are often diagnosed in addition to an axis I
dissociative disorder. Multiples must be held accountable for their behavior
in and out of therapy, just like everyone else.
>I think the strongest example of this is someone I've observed online,
>who believes that she has "babies" inside. These babies *need*
>constant mothering, attention, love. Real people are constantly
>frustrating, because they do not give the babies what they need. At
>one point, this person reported asking her therapist to treat her
>without pay, as proof that the therapist really loved her babies.
>IMHO, those babies are a desperate attempt at controlling the
>situation, at insuring that this person gets the attention and love
>she feels she needs to survive.
This sounds like a very sad case of a misguided, infantilizing therapy.
>I don't think this is true of everyone diagnosed with DID, but I've
>certainly observed this in real life and in many cases I've seen
>online.
I think this reflects the tragedy of the media circus and the exploitation
of symptoms to make an already sad story a sensational one.
--
Kym
Kimberly Barnard
John Clark wrote in message <35DF918B...@ucsd.edu>...
snip
>Again using this crude model, if a person had a larger than 'normal'
>need for attention, and found that as time passed, the current behavior
>didn't result in that need being fullfilled, they may change, perhaps
>in more extreme behavior to gain the attention.
>So, if the point of therapy is to end therapy, a client could at some
>time become aware that eventually they will not be getting attention
>from the therapist and introduce more 'interesting' behavior to maintain
>the theraputic setting...
>How's that for a theory...
Interesting theory, John. Sounds like a bombed therapy to me, though, one in
which the therapist failed to attend to the most obvious interpersonal
problem. And in that case, one's hypothesis about the therapist's disorder
might fall somewhere on the dissociative spectrum. :P
--
Kym
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
The citation you give is interesting reading, but does not offer any
evidence for DID, it only argues about the claims of causality, and it
doesn't even get them correct.
It leads off with a rare explanation of DID, not the one commonly
accepted by critics. Most arguments that DID is iatrogenic do not
claim that the client is trying to "get attention," and I have seen almost
no arguments that DID, as a iatrogenic disorder, would be strongly
associated with histrionic personality. On the contrary, passive-dependent
and borderline personality would be more likely associated with
DID symptoms if (and I say only if) DID is iatrogenic.
But the more important issue is this: you typically take as "evidence"
a published argument in favor of something. The argument is interesting
and suggests some testable hypotheses, but it sure offers no
proof or evidence.
The logic in your citation is weird. They stated, "It is illogical to
argue that a treatment created the disorder when evidence
shows in many cases that the condition preceded treatment.
Another study (Putnam et al, 1986) revealed no significant
differences in the clinical features between those DID patients
with whom hypnosis was or was not used in the treatment." There is
no connection between these, as used by the authors.
Besides, they state (without proof) that "many of these patients"
had dissociative symptoms before treatment, but they did not
claim that most or all did. So what?
This isn't proof. It's just "argument from authority," and not very
good authority at that.
Besides, why are you arguing? Chances are, you and I would agree
on what needs to be done. Spend your time on that instead of
rattling cages in the wrong zoos.
ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rnba7$8eq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
of Dr. Loftus' deposition is quite biased. Even what you quoted from
the deposition appears rather fair-minded. You (or I) may or may not
agree with some of it, but she pretty well restricted herself to her field
of expertise.
It only seems biased if you forget that the rules for expert witnesses is
quite different from the rules for fact witnesses, and the judge makes
this clear in instructions to the jury. For example, jurors are typically
instructed to bear in mind that the expert has no first-hand knowledge of
the events in question, and that the actual applicability of the expert's
knowledge to the case is really up to the jurors to decide.
I think that by concentrating on Dr. Loftus, you are losing attention to
more important issues. Her impact on the area is overstated. I have
never been asked about her work in a single case.
lpacker wrote in message <35e035c5...@news.erols.com>...
mix...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6rlmdt$s...@mochi.lava.net>,
> The epidemiology of MPD or DID strongly suggests that it's a disease
> like koro -- people learn about it, learn how they're supposed to
> experience and display their symptoms, and do so. Cases of MPD/DID
> were extremely rare until after the publication of _Three Faces of
> Eve_ and _Sybil_ and the release of movies made from those books.
> MPD/DID diagnoses multiplied many-fold in the US, but are still rare
> outside the US. A few therapists are responsible for most of the
> diagnoses. All this suggests that that MPD has become a newly
> culturally-acceptable "idiom of distress".
>
> Some researchers tend to dismiss people with MPD/DID as fakers. IMHO,
> this isn't quite fair. They aren't "faking" any more than someone with
> koro is faking. There's real suffering there, looking for a way to
> express itself.
>
> --
> Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> contents may shift during handling
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
mix...@my-dejanews.com
> in intro. psychology textbooks for years. Respected does not
> mean correct.
The fact that you are insulting the pioneers of psychology reveals your
arrogance. Of course, you know what is correct. You are a
'Ph.D.'....uh-hum....after all.
> Iatrogenic? There seems to be more evidence for that than for
> any actual "multiple personalities." I have been struck, over the
> years, by the fact that psychotherapists who treat and believe in
> DID have such huge numbers of individuals with the disorder.
It's amazing that such a rare compartmentalization of conciousness would be
diagnosed in 'such huge numbers'. If this is true, there could be many
factors involved, but this is no argument against it.
>
> There has to be a baseline, and it just can't be high enough to
> account for the phenomenon. I remember one "well respected"
> therapist whose large therapy practice was made up of over 80%
> DID diagnoses, almost all of them from a small town and surrounding
> rural catchment area.
Enlighten us about your memory of this "well respected" therapist and tell us
the name of the small town. There would be no professional disservice by
that.
>
> But none of those people had been reported by neighbors, teachers,
> spouses, etc., of having any signs of separate "identities."
As an example, people with addictions can live separate lives with society
never knowing. The reason people switch is to survive. If a situation arises
in which having a particular identity is a threat, they will switch back.
Having said that though, I'm sure that if you had true information you would
know that in fact people do notice a difference (i.e. a customer comes to the
store but is acting funny. The clerk puts it off to the customer having a bad
day or has been drinking.). Spouses inevitably learn about their mates
problems.
>
> Sounds iatrogenic to me.
>
These people often have never seen a doctor concerning DID or even know that
what is happening to them is not normal. It starts in childhood and is the
result of repeated extreme abuse.
Yes, there are those extreme cases of therapists and psychiatrists that abuse
the diagnosis and treatment. There are far more responsible professionals
that are truly making strides to help these people.
Now, has your therapist addressed your condition, delusions of granduer.
Olavi Noronen
<dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
<6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
>I argue these facts, and I am not associated with, nor have I ever
>even corresponded with the False Memory Foundation. I do
>believe, though, that people like Elizabeth Loftus make good,
>scientific sense.
Dear Dan,
As a non-scientist I have read some articles by Loftus, and her book.
According to them I cannot agree with you.
Here is one example:
"Instead of dwelling on the misery of childhood and digging for
childhood sexual trauma as its cause, why not spend some time doing
something completely different. Borrowing from John Gottman's (1994)
excellent advice on how to make your marriage succeed, patients might
be reminded that negative events in their lives do not completely
cancel out all the positives (p.182). Encourage the patient to think
about the positive aspects of life--even to look through picture
albums from vacations and birthdays. Think of patients as the
architects of their thoughts, and guide them to build a few happy
rooms. The glass that's half empty is also half full. Gottman
recognized the need for some real basis for positive thoughts, but in
many families, as in many marriages, the basis does exist. Campbell
(1994) offers similar advice. Therapists, he believes, should
encourage their clients to recall some positive things about their
families. A competent therapist will help others support and assist
the client, and help the client direct feelings of gratitude toward
those significant others.
Final Remarks
We live in a culture of accusation. When it comes to molestation, the
accused is almost always considered guilty as charged. Some claims of
sexual abuse are as believable as any other reports based on memory,
but others may not be. However, not all claims are true."
- Elisabeth Loftus: Remembering Dangerously. Skeptical Inquirer 19
(2): 20-29.
As you can see Loftus clearly leads therapist to recall memories. She
gives advices which kind of memories are needed. This advice is
similar technique used by abusive parents/caregivers; "remember the
good things". This is directed remembering.
Before I had read the Loftus' article one of my clients had done just
like Loftus have suggested: "even to look through picture albums from
vacations and birthdays". She brought me a photo from her childhood:
http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/articles/vaaruno.htm
(Vaarallista unohtamista = Forgetting Dangerously)
The article is partly Finnish, but at the bottom you will see the
photo. Isn't the girl nice? She may be too old to put into a playpen,
but she is cute. Nice shoes. Nice dress. Reading something. And so
nicely tied in the corner of playpen - with clean and nice leather
band. Isn't this cute?!
Who will choose a "competent therapist" who leads a client
not-to-remember those events which have caused harmful after effects
for decades. Could the therapist be chosen by Paul McHugh?
http://idealist.com/tat/mchugh.shtml
If you read Lynne Henderson's Suppressing Memory. Law & Social
Inquiry. Journal of the American Bar Foundation, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1997,
you will see that there are those people which are labeled as a ' True
Believer' by Loftus.
"On the other side are 'True Believers' who insist that the mind is
capable of repressing memories..." (Loftus & Ketcham)
Olli, a 'True Believer'
Olavi Noronen
scor...@Xkolumbus.fi [Poista X - Remove X]
http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/
Ann Sheehan
>
>
>If you don't know 'where the symptoms originate from' how can you
>say this or that set of symptoms are worthy of treatment, while others
>are not.
Where do you see that I say one set of symtpoms should be treated as
opposed to another set? All I'm pointing out is that, EVEN if someone
were faking DIDs, that very act, faking an illness is a cryfor help,
so the professionals should not dscount ANY presenting symptoms.>
>As far as I've seen posted no one has claimed that people 'fake it'.
No one "made a claim", but brought it up as an issue. Perhaps you
missed that post.
>So, if the point of therapy is to end therapy, a client could at some
>time become aware that eventually they will not be getting attention
>from the therapist and introduce more 'interesting' behavior to
maintain
>the theraputic setting...
>
>How's that for a theory...
>
Very intersting in fact. Many clients often "get worse" as they bring
therapy to a close...even for short vacation periods. Nothign new
there.
Ann>
lpacker
>Thank you for explaining what you meant. You have no clue.
Instead of just dismissing what Karen wrote, if you think you have a
better clue, how about explaining what you think the phrase means,
please?
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e62b79...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On 21 Aug 1998 01:14:55 GMT "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
><dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
><6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
>
>>I argue these facts, and I am not associated with, nor have I ever
>>even corresponded with the False Memory Foundation. I do
>>believe, though, that people like Elizabeth Loftus make good,
>>scientific sense.
>
>Dear Dan,
>
>As a non-scientist I have read some articles by Loftus, and her book.
>According to them I cannot agree with you.
>
My impression is that Dan is discussing Loftus's writing on memory, yet you
excerpt from a nonscientific article (in Skeptical Inquirer) her comments
about how to conduct therapy. She is not a therapist and never has been.
She is not writing as a scientist when she discusses alternatives to memory
work that might be applied in therapy. Her scientific work and comments
refer to the memory experiments and forensic applications of them.
All of us who do research also make comments about things outside the
limited scope of that research. If I make an incorrect comment about what
it says in the preface of the DSM (as I did once in the past here), that
does not invalidate the comments I have made in my published articles on my
area of expertise. Loftus should be considered the same way. If you find
her published articles and books on memory to be invalid, please explain
why. If you find her published comments on psychotherapy to be invalid,
that is a different matter and not surprising, since she is not and has
never pretended to be a psychotherapist.
Nancy
John Clark
Ann Sheehan wrote:
> In article <35DF918B...@ucsd.edu>, j1c...@ucsd.edu says...
> >
> >
> >If you don't know 'where the symptoms originate from' how can you
> >say this or that set of symptoms are worthy of treatment, while others
> >are not.
>
> Where do you see that I say one set of symtpoms should be treated as
> opposed to another set? All I'm pointing out is that, EVEN if someone
> were faking DIDs, that very act, faking an illness is a cryfor help,
> so the professionals should not dscount ANY presenting symptoms.>
I suppose I interpreted your mention treating PTSD symptoms, 'as as
good a place to start as any', as indicating you thought these may have
more 'validity' that any other symptom a person presented, in particular
symptoms of DID.
And of course if DID is an iatrogenicly induced disorder, then by teating
any set of symptoms, one could end up with a person presenting
the DID symptom set...
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e0a0f...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 11:52:56 -0000 "Nancy Alvarado" <st...@binus.com>,
><35e06...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>
snip
>> If you find
>>her published articles and books on memory to be invalid, please explain
>>why.
>
>When I start with her book The Myth of Repressed Memory I can see that
>it is "Dedicated to the principles of science, which demand that any
>claim to 'truth' be accompanied by proof".
>
snip of examples
>I find them. In this book which is dedicated to science.
>
OK, I see what you are objecting to. Thank you for explaining. You seem to
be objecting that she draws conclusions that go too far beyond her own
empirical findings. I think that is a legitimate complaint, but since I
have not seen her book I will read it myself and see how it strikes me. It
may be that she has built a case for her conclusions in the material
preceding the comments you excerpted. I will try to keep an open mind.
>Loftus warns a reader about dream work, but she do not mention that
>there are many types of dream work.
>
>She writes: "Feelings work is designed to tap into "feeling memory".
>(p. 167) This is an unscientific claim. Gestalt therapy use many types
>of feeling works to "close a gestalt", not to tap in any memory.
If she has limited her topic to memory, as seems implicit in the title of
her book, you should not be widening it to apply to all of therapy.
Certainly there are other applications of feelings work, but that is not her
focus. There is no obligation for her to mention that feelings work has
other purposes. I agree with you that feelings work does not only relate to
memory, but as I said, she is not a therapist, has never been one, and is
largely unconcerned with therapy except as it relates to memory.
Your other examples are similar to this point. If she suggests throwing out
these techniques because they have the potential to produce false memories,
that is an extreme statement. I will look for myself to see whether this is
what she says. If she says that therapists should be aware of the potential
of these techniques to give rise to false memories, I think she is on solid
ground. It does not matter what the intention of the therapist is in using
such techniques, if they cause a client to remember something that never
happened. What matters is how the client responds, not what the therapist
intends.
I have seen little willingness on your part to recognize the danger of false
memories engendered by therapeutic techniques. Do you reject everything
that Loftus and others have said about the possibility of false memory, or
do you simply feel that the benefit of using these techniques outweighs
their potential harm?
Nancy
Sisyphus
This sounds like family therapy.
Is that what it feels like prior to integration?
If so, it must be of utmost importance that the therapist not
side with any of the alters.
I read somewhere that in the case of Eve, the therapy almost
stalled when the therapist talked of one of the alters dying.
Norm
Olavi Noronen
<35e06...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>My impression is that Dan is discussing Loftus's writing on memory, yet you
>excerpt from a nonscientific article (in Skeptical Inquirer) her comments
>about how to conduct therapy. She is not a therapist and never has been.
>She is not writing as a scientist when she discusses alternatives to memory
>work that might be applied in therapy. Her scientific work and comments
>refer to the memory experiments and forensic applications of them.
>
>All of us who do research also make comments about things outside the
>limited scope of that research. If I make an incorrect comment about what
>it says in the preface of the DSM (as I did once in the past here), that
>does not invalidate the comments I have made in my published articles on my
>area of expertise. Loftus should be considered the same way. If you find
>her published articles and books on memory to be invalid, please explain
>why.
When I start with her book The Myth of Repressed Memory I can see that
it is "Dedicated to the principles of science, which demand that any
claim to 'truth' be accompanied by proof".
One can easily see that this book is not dedicated to the principles
of science.
There are many personal assumptions which are not scientific at all.
In other sources one can find many claims on repression. Many writers
have expressed almost proofs. Linda Williams did not repeat her
research but she gave a strong assumption that more forgetting is seen
when a perpetrator is a near relative. I took her as one of many.
In this situation a scientist would not put in her book's name: "The
Myth of ..." A myth is something which is not real. For example
Schacter writes about Williams: "This finding comes closer to
supporting claims of massive repression." (p. 260)
Loftus has already decided what is the final truth: "The Myth of ..."
This is not a scientific attitude.
Let me know if I have missed it but I did not find any mention in that
book that a recovered memory can be accurate. If I read correctly also
this point shows the unscientific approach in this book. Schacter
writes: "I have no reason to question the memories of people who have
always remembered their abuse, or who have spontaneously recalled
previously forgotten abuse on their own." (p. 251)
If I read correctly Loftus writes a lot about false memories, but
not at all about accurate recalled memories. This is not scientific
way. It is clearly something else.
On pages 95-96 Loftus writes:
"I couldn't believe what I had just witnessed. In five minutes, with a
few suggestions and minor prods from her father, jenny had accepted a
false memory and embellished it with details of her own. She
remembered being lost, she remembered looking all over for her father,
and she remembered being scared. In less time than it took to cook a
hard-boiled egg, we had created a false memory."
There is no proof that the whole memory was false. Loftus did not
give a proof showing that Jenny had not had an experience being lost
before, somewhere else, in some similar way or another way.
> If you find her published comments on psychotherapy to be invalid,
>that is a different matter and not surprising, since she is not and has
>never pretended to be a psychotherapist.
I find them. In this book which is dedicated to science.
Loftus warns a reader about dream work, but she do not mention that
there are many types of dream work.
She writes: "Feelings work is designed to tap into "feeling memory".
(p. 167) This is an unscientific claim. Gestalt therapy use many types
of feeling works to "close a gestalt", not to tap in any memory.
Loftus writes about "imagistic work as a means of exhuming and
resurrecting buried memories". (p. 157) Having used imaginary work at
therapy for over twenty years I could put here hundreds of lines
showing different types of exercises which have nothing to do with
"exhuming memories". For example, I could show many types of work
which is done to become aware of present self image.
She writes: "Repressed memories are typically recovered in therapy
when the patient is exposed to extensive 'memory work' - suggestive
questioning, guided visualization ..." (p. 141)
Guided visualization can be used in many different ways. NLP uses
guided visualization, but not for memories. Gestalt therapy uses a lot
of it, but not for memories. In many meditation techniques it is used,
but not for memories.
Transpersonal psychotherapy uses many techniques which are "dangerous"
according to Loftus, but they have nothing to do with memories.
Loftus has written the whole chapter about dangerous methods, but very
unscientifically. Supposedly she has become misled.
There are many more issues which I could bring up, but I go to bed
soon.
Her book is partly dedicated to science, partly to personal issues and
partly to false beliefs and assumptions.
Good night,
Olli
Olavi Noronen
<35e0c...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>OK, I see what you are objecting to. Thank you for explaining. You seem to
>be objecting that she draws conclusions that go too far beyond her own
>empirical findings.
Nancy,
As I wrote at night there are tens of examples from which I have seen
that the book is not fair. Already her use of "True Believers" is not
fair if she talks about science: "... but I am also sympathetic to the
True Believers' concerns". (p. 32)
On page 212:
- - -
"I think she's right there," Ellen said. "I just can't believe that a
therapist could convince a patient who was not abused that she was
abused, not just once but many times, and by someone she knew and
perhaps even loved. The whole idea of implanting memories of sexual
abuse strains credibility. If a therapist is on the wrong track, most
patients would simply say so, and either the therapist would get back
on track or the patient would look elsewhere for help. Therapy can be
suggestive - suggestion is, in fact, one of the most effective tools a
therapist has. Perhaps details are added that don't belong in the
original memory. But it's just not possible to implant in someone's
mind a complete memory with details and relevant emotions for a
traumatic event that didn't happen."
"But that's exactly what we did in the shopping mall experiment," I
countered
- - -
According to many works, different clues can trigger flashbacks,
images and emotion related to real trauma. How Loftus have proved that
"relevant emotions" were not triggered but implanted. Had she a clear
possibility to examine the persons whole life to see that there had
not happened anything like being lost?
On page 99 she has written:
"These five cases offered proof-what scientists call existence proof,
which is simply proof that something exists or is possible-for the
fact that it is possible to create false memories for childhood
events. Five people, ranging in age from eight to forty-two, were
induced to develop a memory for something that never happened."
As far as I can understand Loftus has not shown that those
individuals had not experienced anything which might have been somehow
similar with "implanted memories".
>memory, but as I said, she is not a therapist, has never been one, and is
>largely unconcerned with therapy except as it relates to memory.
I agree with Lynne Hendersons who writes:
- - -
A clear agenda in Loftus's book is an attack on clinicians and
psychotherapy, and a deep skepticism of anything but
behavioral/cognitive and drug therapies for people in emotional
distress." She writes of the appeals from parents for help: I spend my
days talking on the phone to strangers accused of the most loathsome
crimes imaginable" (Loftus and Ketcham, p. 5). She renders the anguish
of parents faced with the accusations and lawsuits palpable in several
places, and their denial of having hurt their children sympathetic.
Some of the stories she tells are tragic. Any parent reading the book
could imagine the horror of a loved child wrongly accusing him or her
and would have great empathy for the nightmare such accusations can
create. But despite the immediate empathy, readers must keep in mind,
given that incest and sexual abuse occur within families at more than
a trivial rate, some of the accusations may very well be true and
based on actual events (Bowman and Mertz 1996, 583 n.210; Freyd, pp.
34-37; Finkelhor 1994, 45-46).
The parents' pleas for help, Loftus says, led her to embark on a
crusade to help those wrongly accused. She characterizes the problem
this way:
Each of these stories, and hundreds more like them, began when a grown
man or woman walked into a therapist's office seeking help for life's
problems. Each of these stories involves memories of childhood sexual
abuse recovered while in therapy-memories that did not exist, or at
least were not remembered, before therapy began. Each story tells of a
family wrenched violently apart. (Loftus and Ketcham, p. 6)
She then creates a caricature of psychotherapy, claiming that the sole
question of "modern psychotherapy" is "'How did I get this way?"' and
that therapists push clients to remember childhood events as causes
(P. 7). Further, these therapists encourage their clients to blame
others, particularly parents, and to avoid personal responsibility;
clients decompensate as a result. This is about as inaccurate a pop
portrayal of psychotherapy and therapeutic work as I can think of;
therapists use many approaches with clients, many if not all
therapists stress the client's ability to change, and therapists may
use explorations of the past simply to establish a relationship with
the client (e.g., Yalom 1981).
- - -
I have a female client who has started to recall memories of sexual
abuse by her elder brother. Later her sister, who lives in another
country, visited her, and told how she has always remembered the abuse
which their brother did to her, but about what she had never told to
anyone else but to her husband.
There are also accurate memories which appear during therapy can be
accurate.
Because Loftus is not familiar with different therapies, and what
happens in therapy, she should have avoided the attitude she has.
>I have seen little willingness on your part to recognize the danger of false
>memories engendered by therapeutic techniques.
It could have be seen already 25 years ago. I used then hypnosis, and
discussed also with Finnish psychiatrist Reima Kampman who had
published his experimental study Hypnotically Induced Multiple
Personality. (University of Oulu, 1973)
Even those findings showed that false personalities can be created
it also showed an interesting point which differs from the claims
spread by many sceptics and FMSF proponents: "The group of subjects
who were able to produce multiple personalities were clinically
healthier and more adaptive and their ego apparatuses better than in
the group that was unable to create multiple personalities. The result
is in contradiction with previous results, and suggests that creating
multiple personalities would be an adaptive defence mechanism against
the hypnotic suggestion which is very much ego-dissociating."
> Do you reject everything
>that Loftus and others have said about the possibility of false memory,
No. I have never done so.
> or
>do you simply feel that the benefit of using these techniques outweighs
>their potential harm?
It really depends on which techniques are used, who uses them, and how
they are used. There is no simple and common answer.
Loftus sees great risks in group therapy. I, as a conductor of four
therapy groups and many workshops, have seen many situations where
group members discuss about the accuracy of their memories.
Once there was a female participant who remembered her relationship
with her father really warm. Later she started to recall many events
of sexual abuse. Again later she became into conclusion that those
memories were false. Later she met her sister, collected some courage,
and discussed with her. "Dindn't you remember that our father was 'of
that kind'. She turned again. A couple of years later she contacted
me, telling that she has again some doubts. "I have the feeling that I
have lied." Later she recalled very painful event where her father had
raped her. "Now I know that I have lied. I have told to you, to the
group, and to the other people that there was never an intercouse. I
had remembered only those nights when my father was in my bed, behind
me, and masturbating." Now she has been years in belif that the
memories are accurate.
I think they may be because her sister had always remembered (I met
her sister) their father's sexual abuse.
In anyway, I am very curious to recognize when memory researchers
start to examine how parents/caregivers manipulate children's memory -
in order to cause forgetting of the harmful, painful and illegal
things which are done to them.
I surely believe that harm and damage is caused by incompetent
therapists. Also I believe, as a non-scientist, as a True Believer, as
a therapist, that memory manipulation, done by parents/caregivers, is
much, much wider, causing much more damage and harm in common.
When there is a lot of work done to show that it is possible to
remember falsely by using some therapy techniques, and at same time
there is no work done on the other, wider side, this causes me
strongly to question so called scientific approaches in this false
memory issue.
Thank you for using your button.
Olavi Noronen
<6rlnsf$s...@mochi.lava.net>,wrote:
>However, shamanism and spirit possession are known world-wide and
>could well be considered functional equivalents of MPD/DID, as Spanos
>points out.
Dear Karen,
As you know in shamanism the switch happens intentionally. There is a
meaning for the shift. Often the meaning to explore, help or cure.
In MPD/DID the shift happens in threatening situation; for escaping
I have put back to my home page some drawings which are drawn by my
ex-clients. I created this page for another discussion last spring.
Figures 1-7 are drawn by same person. In figure #1 she describes the
different personalities she experiences within. Figures 2-7 are more
detailed. She draw those figures to help our work; it was easier for
her to recognize "who" was present, what were the emotions or
situations which she escaped by "choosing" different personality.
You (or your shamanistic personalities) may want to have a look:
http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/gallery/mpd.htm
and if you compare them with figures by another woman who experienced
being in a light shamanistic state:
http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/gallery/shampics.htm
you may see the tone of figures quite different.
Shifting sometimes,
Olavi Noronen
<6rme49$m9i$7...@as4100c.javanet.com>,wrote:
>Neither had my therapist, who because he had never seen DID's in his
>practice, didn't recognize the switching when it occurred.
Dear Ann,
When the shift occurs it is sometimes difficult to notice. It requires
also emotional competence from a therapist.
Today I have seen them so many that recognizing is easier. The switch
can be noticed in posture, moving, facial expressions, eyes and in
voice.
Sometimes I ask from a client: "Who are you?" when she/he enters in.
Also in group situations I may ask: "Who is talking now?"
- Me. Why do you ask like this? Are you grazy?
- You are different. Your voice is different. You stare at me
differently. Who are you?
- I don't know. I Was more scared than normally when I was coming to
the group.
- If you are scared why don't you look like being scared. You are
just cool, indifferent. What's going on?
- I don't know. I feel like I have frozen something.
- What is the purpose of frozening? What is your goal? Are you
selling icescream?
- I don't know. I don't like your questions? What the hell you are
doing. Leave me alone. Let me be. (Stares at me with increasing
anger.)
- It's ok. I suggest that you enjoy your frozen icecream.
...
- I don't like myself like this. (strats to cry) This is what happens
to me sometimes. I don't know myself. I don't know what's going on. I
don't feel anything, and I become easily angry.
When they start to become aware of the switch they start to notice in
which kind of situations it happens. Some start to recollect how they
have "disappeared" every now and then from their adolescence or
earlier childhood.
Best,
mix...@my-dejanews.com
Jossey-Boss Publishers......chapter 2, "Dissociation, Psychotherapy and the
Cognitive Sciences" written by Daniel J. Siegel.
I am not a psychologist but I live with DID everyday of my life. My wife is
DID and there is no doubt in my mind that what is written in the pages of
that chapter make sense and are true.
I apologize for any harsh responses that I may have left in this newsgroup
but I am outraged at the sceptism that people in the profession have to the
very diagnosis of DID. It is as if the these professionals by their denial
are in complicity with the initial extremely traumatic abuses.
Mixant
In article <6rki0k$v96$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
"Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
> >Find a textbook and read.
> >
> >Mixant
>
> You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence.
>
> What is the reference? I have never seen such an "excellent
> explanation," and even then, a mere explanation, without proof,
> would be of limited value.
mix...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35f54c9b....@news.erols.com>,
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
any more of the directions of these threads that involved personalization
of the issues. I hope you don't mind.
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e21652...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
psychologists, are not at all denying the distress or the existence of
traumatic abuse. What I, and some others, dispute is the explanation
of the symptoms, the mechanism of the symptoms.
I do not deny abuse, and I do not deny that abuse can cause some
pretty severe symptoms. But I also claim that there are better
explanations for the symptoms that "splitting," "alters," etc. Much
better explanations.
And I deny that there is any scientific basis for the "multiple identity"
description. In fact, I think that clinging to such an explanation is
counter-therapeutic.
On the other hand, as a caring therapist I also argue that
the individuals who are suffering need treatment. Period. Almost
any treatment is better than no treatment. So long as the treatment
does not result in unsupported allegations against family members,
I don't care (as a therapist) what treatment is used.
mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rrr61$o3k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>See "Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder", James L.Spira, editor,
>Jossey-Boss Publishers......chapter 2, "Dissociation, Psychotherapy and the
>Cognitive Sciences" written by Daniel J. Siegel.
>
>I am not a psychologist but I live with DID everyday of my life. My wife is
>DID and there is no doubt in my mind that what is written in the pages of
>that chapter make sense and are true.
>
>I apologize for any harsh responses that I may have left in this newsgroup
>but I am outraged at the sceptism that people in the profession have to the
>very diagnosis of DID. It is as if the these professionals by their denial
>are in complicity with the initial extremely traumatic abuses.
>
>Mixant
>
>
>
>In article <6rki0k$v96$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>> mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> >There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
>> >Find a textbook and read.
>> >
>> >Mixant
>>
>> You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence.
>>
>> What is the reference? I have never seen such an "excellent
>> explanation," and even then, a mere explanation, without proof,
>> would be of limited value.
>>
>>
>
cc...@tir.com
ashe...@massed.net (Ann Sheehan) wrote:
> Neither had my therapist, who because he had never seen DID's in his
> practice, didn't recognize the switching when it occurred.
>
> how anyone could keep up with such an "act" for any period of time.
> Issues such as "lost time" would fall apart as "stories" became more
> complicated. Of course, seeing a therapist unethical enuf to induce
> such behavior, and then reinforce it, would prolong the act.
I actually don't believe there are many therapists who *intentionally*
induce DID---only many who see something that isn't there.
>
> There is no secondary gain to such a dx (altho, there is surely a
> primary gain of having one's therapist spend a lot of time and energy,
> the initial "thrill" of being part of a select group, etc.) But, once
> dx'd, life is never the same. You are branded by insurance, often
> laughed at, plied with drug "cures" etc. The situation must be hidden,
> if possible, at work and if it becomes known in that melieu, then life
> can be pure hell and options limited.
It is a terrible thing to believe of oneself, even considering any secondary
gains. I don't, however, understand how it could ever be hidden from work,
for example, if the diagnosis is real. The fact that it often is hidden from
others, and that the therapist is the first person to see it, is suspect.
>
> In fact, probably the truest cases of DIDs are those people who would
> not advertise they had such a dx. It is not something to feel proud of
> as it also implies a rather nasty childhood.
That is a judgment call. People are very different. Perhaps some who
believe they have it feel they will somehow help others by speaking out about
it.
Donna
K Long
:See "Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder", James L.Spira, editor,
:Jossey-Boss Publishers......chapter 2, "Dissociation, Psychotherapy and the
:Cognitive Sciences" written by Daniel J. Siegel.
:
:I am not a psychologist but I live with DID everyday of my life. My wife is
:DID and there is no doubt in my mind that what is written in the pages of
:that chapter make sense and are true.
:
:I apologize for any harsh responses that I may have left in this newsgroup
:but I am outraged at the sceptism that people in the profession have to the
:very diagnosis of DID. It is as if the these professionals by their denial
:are in complicity with the initial extremely traumatic abuses.
:
:Mixant
:
I can sympathize with your frustration. My SO has DID and it is so
obvious to me that it is real. I do some volunteer types of work with
other dissociatives, as well, and as such come into contact with those
who are obviously feigning the disorder. It mystified me as to why
anyone would do such a thing, as they didn't appear to be malicious
people.
But I've made these observations about the types that would presume
themselves to be multiple: they intensely feel internal conflict --
being pulled in two different directions at one time: say on the one
hand feeling compassion to someone who is suffering, and on the other
hand angry at how that person hurt is being manifest by their actions.
Or anger at a boss for perceived mistreatment, and feeling of intense
shame, that they "deserve it" somehow.
I believe these conflicts, if not addressed by a "healthy" person as
being normal responses, begin to be perceived as "others". The harm
that I see occurring is that in assuming "others", or alternate
personalities, they are stepping away from ownership of their feelings
and responsibilitiy for their actions in expressing these feelings.
In effect, they get worse, not better.
With someone who has DID, the "stepping away" occurred a long time
ago, and what needs to be done is learning the "whys" of particular
responses by "parts" and moving toward understanding and acceptance...
a stepping back in, as it were.
Just wanted to let you know that I heard your frustration.
Regards,
Kathleen
K Long
:Kym,
:This sounds like family therapy.
:Is that what it feels like prior to integration?
:If so, it must be of utmost importance that the therapist not
:side with any of the alters.
:
Oh, I think that is absolutely correct...the not siding with anyone in
particular. The whole point is to get all of that person to accept
all that they are. If one of the personalities reacts in a certain
way, it is because that is a reaction of the whole person. Denying we
have certain aspects of ourselves never seems to work, multi or
monomind, eh?
:I read somewhere that in the case of Eve, the therapy almost
:stalled when the therapist talked of one of the alters dying.
:
I've recently experienced with a very dear friend a significant
integration or merging of two personalities. It was a very
interesting experience for me, as I am so close to her and to the two
personalities that merged. I could see them getting closer and closer
to each other to the point where, close to the merge, I couldn't
distinguish between them. What happened is that they began to share
some significant emotional responses to things...notably one learning
anger and the other learning love. Since the merge, she will refer to
herself as "I" what each of them were prior to the merge.
No one dies. Just the barrier between them falls.
Regards,
Kathleen
K Long
Noronen) wrote:
:On 22 Aug 1998 12:38:33 GMT ashe...@massed.net (Ann Sheehan),
:<6rme49$m9i$7...@as4100c.javanet.com>,wrote:
:
:>Neither had my therapist, who because he had never seen DID's in his
:>practice, didn't recognize the switching when it occurred.
:
:Dear Ann,
:When the shift occurs it is sometimes difficult to notice. It requires
:also emotional competence from a therapist.
:
:Today I have seen them so many that recognizing is easier. The switch
:can be noticed in posture, moving, facial expressions, eyes and in
:voice.
:
:Sometimes I ask from a client: "Who are you?" when she/he enters in.
:
Just FYI, most of the multiples I know would really resent that
question. Just as they need to accept all of themselves, so do you
need to accept all of them, as a single entity as well as being
"separate" to a certain degree.
Over time you will recognize the differences. Be patient, and you'll
know. Asking seems rude somehow.
Just my observations.
Kathleen
cc...@tir.com
ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> >Suffice to say, that the only groups of people who are "skeptical"
> >about this obvious illness are the False Memory Syndrome proponents.
> >You have to quit being fooled by these people, Karen.
> >Doesn't reflect well on you.
>
> D> You are wrong. I see no evidence for DID, and a lot of evidence
> > against it. For example: none observed naturalistically, none observed
> > in children, none reported in previous centuries (amazing for such
> > a spectacular disorder), and on and on. The reports of symptoms
> > just do not hold up and there are more parsimonious explanations.
>
> Ah ha! I have found it:
>
> From Memory Trauma Treatment and the Law, 1998 by Sheflin,
> Hammond and Brown, pg. 405
>
> "While proponents of the iagrogenesis hypothesis have argued that
> patients simulate DID in order to seek attention,
This is *not* my argument. Patients do not simulate or fake this condition
generally. They believe it to be true and are supported in that belief by
professionals.
Gleaves cites a
> number of empirical studies that have shown no significant
> relationship between DID and histrionic personality and other
> attention-seeking traits. In response to the hypothesis that DID
> is a by-product of using hypnosis, Gleaves cites a study by Ross,
> Norton, and Wozney (1989) demonstrating that only 27% of the DID
> patients had been hypnotized prior to establishing the DID diagnosis.
Hypnosis would not be necessary for DID, I'm sure, any more than it is
necessary for false memories.
> Moreover, the iatrogenesis argument failed to take into account
> that many of these patients had a long history of dissociative
> symptoms long before the DID was made. It is illogical to argue that
> a treatment created the disorder when evidence shows in many cases
> that the condition preceded treatment.
What are "dissociative symptoms"?
Another study (Putnam et al,
> 1986) revealed no signicicant differences in the clinical features
> between those DID patients with whom hypnosis was or was not used
> in the treatment.
> While proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis see no relationship
> between DID and a history of childhood abuse, Gleaves says,
>
> "Researchers of recent studies have consistently found a strong
> association between DID and forms of childhood trauma" (52).
Perhaps this is because people who were abused in childhood are more likely
to seek therapy (which then creates DID) than because there is any connection
between supposed DID and child abuse.
Gleaves
> points out that proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis fail to
> understand the DID treatment literature. According to their view,
> "MPD patients come to believe that their alter identities are real
> personalities rather than self-generated fantasies" (Spanos, 1994,
> p. 144, cited in Gleaves, p.47) Gleaves says that Spano's view is:
>
> at odds with what is recommended in the clinical literature on
> DID...according to this treatment literature, one of the goals of
> treatment for DID is to help the individual understand that the
> alters are in fact self-generated, not to convince the patient that
> alters are real people or personalities. (p.47)
What is meant by "self-generated"? While I agree that an individual does
have control over their alters (even if they don't realize they have such
control), the behavior is usually first identified and even encouraged in
therapy. So it's questionable that the behavior *originates* with the
person; they hear about it either from the therapist or from outside sources.
It is interesting that eventually therapists "help the individual understand
that the alters are in fact self-generated" just as now I hear therapists
speaking about helping individuals come to understand that their "repressed
memories" may be metaphors for something else, and not real memories.
Therapy sometimes creates a problem, and then "helps" the person through it.
> Gleaves believes that the treatment strategy recommended by
> proponents of the DID iatrogenesis hypothesis, namely, to discourage
> alter behavior and recollections of abuse, may be harmful:
>
> ...proponents recommend that alters should be ignored (e.g. McHugh,
> 1993). The argument is based on the logic that to speak of alters
> as real would reify them in the mind of a confused and suggestible
> patient, thus worsening his or her condition...What is critical to
> understand is that acknowleding a patient with DID to have genuine
> experience of alters as real people or entities is not the same as
> stating that alters are actually real people or entities. An analogy
> with another mental disorder may help clarify the distinction. Many
> individuals with anorexia nervosa state that they experience themselves
> as obese, even though they are emaciated. To tell such a patient
> that one understands and believes that he or she expereinces the
> self in that fashion is not the same as understanding that he or
> she is truly obese...Most mental health professionals would probably
> argue that it would be inappropriate to tell a patient with anorexia
> nervosa that one simply does not believe his or her perceptions
> (p. 48)
There is also a difference between ignoring "alters" (saying "I will only
speak to your 'core' personality") and telling someone their "alters" are not
real.
>
> Gleaves argues that not addressing the DID condition witha specific
> treatment may result in interminable treatment. He calls this
> phenomenon "iatrogenesis by neglect" (p. 54)
It can also be argued that the approach of not addressing DID has been
effective. Perhaps dealing with the client's more mundane life problems
brings them back to reality.
Very scientific-sounding, albeit with very little substance.
Donna
>
> --
> Karen,
> Curio...@hotmail.com
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/senate/6496
> Wenatchee Sex Ring
>
cc...@tir.com
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> Ann Sheehan (ashe...@massed.net) wrote:
>
> : There is no secondary gain to such a dx (altho, there is surely a
> : primary gain of having one's therapist spend a lot of time and energy,
> : the initial "thrill" of being part of a select group, etc.) But, once
> : dx'd, life is never the same. You are branded by insurance, often
> : laughed at, plied with drug "cures" etc. The situation must be hidden,
> : if possible, at work and if it becomes known in that melieu, then life
> : can be pure hell and options limited.
>
> over intimate relationships. The patient reveals himself/herself to
> family and SO and asks for belief in the reality of the other
> personalities and the switching. The family/SO is then expected to
> respond to the alters presented as if they were indeed interacting
> with a person of the age and gender claimed. The alters presented
> often seem to be cute, innocent, needy children, who of course should
> be treated with the same love and indulgence that one would give a
> real child this age. Or, they're feisty adolescent "protectors" who
> can get angry but must be tolerated because of their age and because
> they're just trying to protect the cute innnocent alters.
>
> who believes that she has "babies" inside. These babies *need*
> constant mothering, attention, love. Real people are constantly
> frustrating, because they do not give the babies what they need. At
> one point, this person reported asking her therapist to treat her
> without pay, as proof that the therapist really loved her babies.
> IMHO, those babies are a desperate attempt at controlling the
> situation, at insuring that this person gets the attention and love
> she feels she needs to survive.
>
> certainly observed this in real life and in many cases I've seen
> online.
>
> Karen Lofstrom
The Primetime Live program was an illustration of a type of secondary gain
similar to what Karen discusses. When the "alter" came out, she lashed out
at the reporter with something about how hard it was to live with this kind
of pain. The reporter responded cautiously and without a reporter's usual
removed objectivity, as if she was dealing with a child. I'm sure many
people, when giving interviews to reporters that involve uncomfortable
questions, have a part of them that feels like reacting strongly,
emotionally, with a message along the lines of "get screwed." But we rein in
those tendencies so that we can communicate rationally and intelligently.
The MPD diagnosis gives the person an opportunity to communicate in any
volatile way that comes to mind.
Donna
John M Price
In article <6rrr61$o3k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: See "Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder", James L.Spira, editor,
: Jossey-Boss Publishers......chapter 2, "Dissociation, Psychotherapy and the
: Cognitive Sciences" written by Daniel J. Siegel.
: I am not a psychologist but I live with DID everyday of my life. My wife is
: DID and there is no doubt in my mind that what is written in the pages of
: that chapter make sense and are true.
: I apologize for any harsh responses that I may have left in this newsgroup
: but I am outraged at the sceptism that people in the profession have to the
: very diagnosis of DID. It is as if the these professionals by their denial
: are in complicity with the initial extremely traumatic abuses.
: Mixant
: In article <6rki0k$v96$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
: "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
: >
: > mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
: > >There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
: > >Find a textbook and read.
: > >
: > >Mixant
: >
: > You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence.
: >
: > What is the reference? I have never seen such an "excellent
: > explanation," and even then, a mere explanation, without proof,
: > would be of limited value.
: >
: >
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
: http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
_
_ / \ o
/ \ | | o o o
| | | | _ o o o o
| \_| | / \ o o o
\__ | | | o o
| | | | ______ ~~~~ _____
| |__/ | / ___--\\ ~~~ __/_____\__
| ___/ / \--\\ \\ \ ___ <__ x x __\
| | / /\\ \\ )) \ ( " )
| | -------(---->>(@)--(@)-------\----------< >-----------
| | // | | //__________ / \ ____) (___ \\
| | // __|_| ( --------- ) //// ______ /////\ \\
// | ( \ ______ / <<<< <>-----<<<<< / \\
// ( ) / / \` \__ \\
//-------------------------------------------------------------\\
Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels
start closing in, the only cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and
then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas ... with the
music at top volume and at least a pint of ether.
-- H.S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
cc...@tir.com
about the negatives." She simply says that the negatives do not cancel out
the positives. Too much therapy time is spent only looking at the negative
and ignoring the postive. That is directed remembering, not what Loftus
suggests.
As far as the photo you seem to think proves abuse, I don't think you can
make that kind of judgment without further information. The child is not
distressed and seems to be reading a book quite contently. Perhaps the
"seatbelt" was only there for the purpose of keeping her in that cute pose
for the photograph. Did anyone bother to ask the parents about it? And as
for her being "too old for a playpen," that is a matter of opinion and can
differ from child to child. For you to present this photo as proof of abuse
tells me much about your bias.
Donna
In article <35e62b79...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
scor...@kolumbus.fi wrote:
> On 21 Aug 1998 01:14:55 GMT "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
> <dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
> <6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
>
> >I argue these facts, and I am not associated with, nor have I ever
> >even corresponded with the False Memory Foundation. I do
> >believe, though, that people like Elizabeth Loftus make good,
> >scientific sense.
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> As a non-scientist I have read some articles by Loftus, and her book.
> According to them I cannot agree with you.
>
> Olavi Noronen
> scor...@Xkolumbus.fi [Poista X - Remove X]
> http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
lpacker
>My comments were in response to her dismissal of DID as an idiom of distress.
I didn't get the impression that she was dismissing it as an "idiom of
distress" (as she defined the concept). To the contrary, I got the
impression that she was suggesting that there is real pain and
suffering and that one could understand the disorder within the
context of some cultural factors. That doesn't make it any less
"real" -- it merely provides an alternative *explanation* for the
mechanisms.
But maybe Karen can clarify whether she was really being "dismissive"
or not. I think I may have missed some of the posts, so maybe I've
misread something here.
Regards,
Leslie
>
>
>In article <35f54c9b....@news.erols.com>,
> lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
>> mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >Thank you for explaining what you meant. You have no clue.
>>
>> Instead of just dismissing what Karen wrote, if you think you have a
>> better clue, how about explaining what you think the phrase means,
>> please?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >In article <6rlmdt$s...@mochi.lava.net>,
SMcNary
I was reminded of Joan Acocella's 4/6/98 article in the New Yorker "The
Politics of Hysteria" after reading Karen's comment. Although I found the
article very interesting and agree with several points about the
relationship between some stakeholders in MPD diagnosis and a political
agenda, I was disappointed to find another discussion of this diagnosis
which is ultimately anti-therapist.
Acocella describes Elizabeth Carlson's experiences of diagnosis of and
treatment for MPD and subsequent retraction of these. Whereas Acocella is
is sympathetic to Carlson's ordeal, she doesn't seem to offer therapists
involved with this disorder much in the way of benefit of the doubt.
It is really important to remember that therapists will not comment on a
patient's care for reasons of protecting patients' confidentiality and, if
a legal case is pending, may also not comment due to advice from an
attorney. All of this is not conveyed by a therapist refusing to talk to
a reporter, which Acocella seems to imply is an admission of complicity of
some sort. Further, because therapists do not comment, the other side of
the story is never aired.
I don't know the case or the therapist involved, Humenansky, nor do I
argue with the belief that there have been tragic results from misguided
treatments and misguided treaters. But refusing to comment is not
evidence of guilt.
The author also did not appear to have read any of the responses to the
critiques of MPD theory. For example, Gleaves (1996) responds to Spanos'
article on the Sociocognitive Model of DID in Psychological Bulletin.
Gleaves abstract is included but it is worth emphasizing his point that
many of the critiques of the theory are based on misunderstandings of
psychopathology and treatment of the disorder.
Title: The sociocognitive model of dissociative identity disorder: A
reexamination of the evidence.
Media Type: Journal Article
Author(s): Gleaves, David H.
Institution(s): Texas A&M U, College Station, TX, US
Source: Psychological Bulletin, 1996 Jul Vol 120(1) 42-59
Year: 1996
ISSN: 00332909
Abstract:
According to the sociocognitive model of dissociative
identity disorder (DID; formerly, multiple personality disorder), DID is
not a valid psychiatric disorder of posttraumatic origin; rather, it is a
creation of psychotherapy and the media. Support for the model was
recently presented by N. P. Spanos (see record 81:41224). In this article,
the author reexamines the evidence for the model and concludes that it is
based on numerous false assumptions about the psychopathology, assessment,
and treatment of DID. Most recent research on the dissociative disorders
does not support (and in fact disconfirms) the sociocognitive model, and
many inferences drawn from previous research appear unwarranted. No reason
exists to doubt the connection between DID and childhood trauma. Treatment
recommendations that follow from the sociocognitive model may be harmful
because they involve ignoring the posttraumatic symptomatology of persons
with DID. (Journal abstract) (PsycINFO Database Copyright 1996 American
Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)
*****
Another issue which Acocella neglected to include was other ideas about
the historical treatments of MPD. Other spp contributors have made the
point that is hasn't existed in previous centuries or in other cultures. I
might add that it is not yet clear what the prevalence of this disorder is
(i.e., I am not aware of any data that have responded to this question
comprehensively), and one of the reasons may concern the diagnostic
criteria and how they have been historically regarded. To wit, in the
early part of this century those with MPD/DID shared many symptoms in
common with persons diagnosed with schizophrenia, a point made by
Lowenstein et al in a 1992 article I can't find, but I have included an
article addressing similar content below:
Title: Dissociation and schizophrenia: An historical review of conceptual
development and relevant treatment approaches.
Author(s): Gainer, Karen
Source: Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders, 1994 Dec
Vol 7(4) 261-271
Abstract:
Provides a historical perspective regarding the role of
dissociation in the development of both etiologic theory and treatment
paradigms for schizophrenia. References to the concept of dissociation are
drawn from classic writings on dementia praecox, and from E. Bleuler's
(1911) original conception of schizophrenia as a splitting of the
personality. The traditional Schneiderian first-rank symptoms, once
thought to be indicative symptoms of schizophrenia, now are viewed as
characteristic diagnostic indicators of dissociative identity disorder.
The article reviews research and theory pertaining to differential
diagnosis between schizophrenia and trauma-related dissociative syndromes,
compares early psychodynamic treatment paradigms for schizophrenia and
contemporary treatment paradigms for dissociative disorders, and
highlights relevant diagnostic and treatment implications. (PsycINFO
Database Copyright 1995 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)
*********
I'm including these abstracts in the hope those interested will be
encouraged to find there are theorists who will balance what appears to be
the trend to rely on fairly one-sided accounts I observe in articles like
Acocella's or in Frontline pieces like "The Search for Satan".
In summary, I believe that laying the blame for the creation of the
disorder at the feet of therapists and patients may have some use in
weaving together threads of political and cultural influence, but it
seriously neglects both literature on treatment and psychopathology of
DID, the individuals who suffer the disorder, and those who try to help
them.
Scot
--
\----/ \----/ \----/
|||| Scot McNary |||| sc...@wam.umd.edu ||||
|||| Graduate Student, UMCP |||| (bethany too) ||||
/----\ /----\ /----\
John Clark
Olavi Noronen schrieb:
> On 22 Aug 1998 06:18:55 GMT lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom),
> <6rlnsf$s...@mochi.lava.net>,wrote:
>
> >However, shamanism and spirit possession are known world-wide and
> >could well be considered functional equivalents of MPD/DID, as Spanos
> >points out.
>
> Dear Karen,
> As you know in shamanism the switch happens intentionally. There is a
> meaning for the shift. Often the meaning to explore, help or cure.
>
> In MPD/DID the shift happens in threatening situation; for escaping
How do you know that the person who is 'chosen' to be the shaman is
not a person who does the switching 'naturally' and hence is identified
as being close to the spirit world, then by the process of training and
initiation required for most shamen, the person can take on the personalities
at will.
Also, those who the shaman teats who are 'possessed' are perhaps
persons who 'suffer' from what more 'moderns' would call DID/MPD.
In primitives societies often 'odd' characteristics are formalized and
'accepted' by some means. For example, boys or girls who do
not take to the traditional roles have an alternative of being identified
as a Man or Woman, depending on their inclinations, at least that is the
case in some of the native american tribes.
Hence what modern pscyhology worried about for nearly a century,
ie 'Latent Homosexuality in males' would not have been seen as a
'problem' so to speak. (Lesbianism seems not to caught the fancy
of the researchers as much... perhaps because women don't have
to even be excited about sex to become pregnant...)
Now we have DID/MPD and again the position of 'shaman' is no
longer available, and one would rather not have one's burger cook
change personality whilst buring burgers...
Nancy Alvarado
><35e0c...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>
>
>>OK, I see what you are objecting to. Thank you for explaining. You seem
to
>>be objecting that she draws conclusions that go too far beyond her own
>>empirical findings.
>
>Nancy,
>
>As I wrote at night there are tens of examples from which I have seen
>that the book is not fair. Already her use of "True Believers" is not
>fair if she talks about science: "... but I am also sympathetic to the
>True Believers' concerns". (p. 32)
>
snip of additional examples
From what you have posted, the Loftus book does not sound like a scientific
work. It sounds like it was written as a popular book (for a lay audience)
to promote her own point of view and to convince others on social and
political issues. A while back I criticized Brian for confusing books whose
purpose is to persuade with scholarly works. It is an easy mistake to make
given that Loftus has also written many academic research articles. This
book does not sound like a report of her academic research but instead a
book giving her opinions about false memory and therapy. Books intended to
convince are rarely fair, balanced in their treatment, or even-handed. I do
not consider that a book that is meant to promote opinions, even when
written by a scientist, is representative of science. For example, you
cannot take the writings of Noam Chomsky on politics as representative of
his views on linguistics, nor the works of Linus Pauling on topics outside
of physics. Yet these individuals are still great scientists and their
scientific work stands on the strength of its empirical evidence. For you
to condemn science on the basis of a non-scientific book suggests that you
do not know the difference between what is science and what is opinion.
Nancy
Kimberly Barnard
Yes, Norm, it really is 'inner' family therapy in many respects. And the
bulk of my therapist's practice is family therapy and divorce mediation
(perhaps adds that emphasis to her treatment with me.)
> Is that what it feels like prior to integration?
Yes, because in the beginning, the states felt like subversive aliens. It
helps to view it in a family context, with adults in charge and me in
control and basically, in mono lingo, that means learning to responsibly
parent myself. I also become my own "inner therapist" and can do a lot of
the work of therapy on my own. It has helped me be a good parent to my
daughter, as well.
> If so, it must be of utmost importance that the therapist not
> side with any of the alters.
Yes, very much so. Here's what Kluft says about this:
"Treat All Personalities Evenhandedly and With Consistency. MPD is a
condition related to the inconsistency of important others. Most MPD
patients were brought up under conditions in which the powerful figures in
their environment changed drastically and menacingly, and the patients
developed different alters to relate to these different behaviors.
Therefore, the therapist must be evenhanded to all of the alters and must
avoid "playing favorites" or dramatically altering his or her own behavior
toward the different personalities. The therapist's consistency across all
of the different alters is one of the most powerful assaults on the
patient's dissociative defenses.
(this is funny--) The MAD patient whose therapist changes in response to
which alter is in executive control has 'multiple therapist disorder.'"
Somewhere else in this book (cited below) he says he "bores his patients
into health."
> I read somewhere that in the case of Eve, the therapy almost
> stalled when the therapist talked of one of the alters dying.
I'm not very familiar with Eve's case, but dissociation is a defense for
survival. Imagined death *is* a show stopper. Integration (is that what the
'death' was about in this case?) isn't death though. I recognize others who
have integrated in my own reactions and statements. Blended, but very much
alive and very important parts of me.
> Norm
--
Kym
Kimberly Barnard
cc...@tir.com wrote in message <6rsrv4$2ik$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
snip
>As far as the photo you seem to think proves abuse, I don't think you can
>make that kind of judgment without further information. The child is not
>distressed and seems to be reading a book quite contently. Perhaps the
>"seatbelt" was only there for the purpose of keeping her in that cute pose
>for the photograph. Did anyone bother to ask the parents about it? And as
>for her being "too old for a playpen," that is a matter of opinion and can
>differ from child to child. For you to present this photo as proof of
abuse
>tells me much about your bias.
>
>Donna
>
>In article <35e62b79...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> scor...@kolumbus.fi wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 1998 01:14:55 GMT "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
>> <dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
>> <6rihmf$1j5c$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
snip
>> Before I had read the Loftus' article one of my clients had done just
>> like Loftus have suggested: "even to look through picture albums from
>> vacations and birthdays". She brought me a photo from her childhood:
>> http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/articles/vaaruno.htm
>> (Vaarallista unohtamista = Forgetting Dangerously)
>> The article is partly Finnish, but at the bottom you will see the
>> photo. Isn't the girl nice? She may be too old to put into a playpen,
>> but she is cute. Nice shoes. Nice dress. Reading something. And so
>> nicely tied in the corner of playpen - with clean and nice leather
>> band. Isn't this cute?!
I looked at that picture and it bothers me. I thought the whole idea for the
playpen was to contain a toddler, so why the leather strap? A child this age
can sit on her own unless there is some physical or developmental problem.
(Donna-- hold the child in position for a picture? Are you serious?)
I don't know if it proves "abuse" -- whether the child was often restrained
this way or whether this picture shows the 'tip of the iceberg'... surely
this photo contains an important metaphor for your client, Olli.
I wonder if in your country some parents use leashes to control their
children or not. I really hate to see that, but I don't know whether to say
that it is abusive. I suppose a mother with a hyperactive child who must
enter a crowded shopping mall with the child may feel she must resort to
this for the child's safety. But it still bothers me.
--
Kym
Beautywalk
>and one would rather not have one's burger cook
>change personality whilst buring burgers...
You have a burger cook at your house? And he/she does *what* to those burgers?
Is it legal?
</comic relief>
GTV3419
>and focus on the person's real life, although certainly more mundane,
>problems.
>
>Donna
Is this a funny????
gail
CGRusher
>From: "Kimberly Barnard" <barn...@uwp.edu>
>Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 21:50 EDT
>Message-id: <6rt5hi$kk9$1...@news2.alpha.net>
I read When Rabbit Howls about Trudi Chase. As I understood it, the decision
was made not to integrate because her "core personality" no longer existed or
was too damaged. Can anyone explain what the function of the core is?
CG
>> Norm
>
>--
>
>Kym
>
>
>
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
(crisisgal)
Oh dear lord............this is amazing.....the degree of ignorance
<boggle>
What you have been busily pontificating about has a name - it is
dissociative disorder and it has a continuim. Mild to severe. It is
not a cookie cutter disorder.
>
> Another study (Putnam et al,
>> 1986) revealed no signicicant differences in the clinical features
>> between those DID patients with whom hypnosis was or was not used
>> in the treatment.
>> While proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis see no
relationship
>> between DID and a history of childhood abuse, Gleaves says,
>>
>> "Researchers of recent studies have consistently found a strong
>> association between DID and forms of childhood trauma" (52).
>
>Perhaps this is because people who were abused in childhood are more
likely
>to seek therapy (which then creates DID) than because there is any
connection
>between supposed DID and child abuse.
Sigh.............
>
> Gleaves
>> points out that proponents of the iatrogenesis hypothesis fail to
>> understand the DID treatment literature. According to their view,
>> "MPD patients come to believe that their alter identities are real
>> personalities rather than self-generated fantasies" (Spanos, 1994,
>> p. 144, cited in Gleaves, p.47) Gleaves says that Spano's view is:
>>
>> at odds with what is recommended in the clinical literature on
>> DID...according to this treatment literature, one of the goals of
>> treatment for DID is to help the individual understand that the
>> alters are in fact self-generated, not to convince the patient that
>> alters are real people or personalities. (p.47)
>
>What is meant by "self-generated"? While I agree that an individual
does
>have control over their alters (even if they don't realize they have
such
>control), the behavior is usually first identified and even encouraged
in
>therapy.
This is not true. The behavior appears at the time of trauma or split.
So it's questionable that the behavior *originates* with the
>person; they hear about it either from the therapist or from outside
sources.
>
>It is interesting that eventually therapists "help the individual
understand
>that the alters are in fact self-generated" just as now I hear
therapists
>speaking about helping individuals come to understand that their
"repressed
>memories" may be metaphors for something else, and not real memories.
>Therapy sometimes creates a problem, and then "helps" the person
through it.
Sigh.........
>
>> Gleaves believes that the treatment strategy recommended by
>> proponents of the DID iatrogenesis hypothesis, namely, to discourage
>> alter behavior and recollections of abuse, may be harmful:
>>
>> ...proponents recommend that alters should be ignored (e.g. McHugh,
>> 1993). The argument is based on the logic that to speak of alters
>> as real would reify them in the mind of a confused and suggestible
>> patient, thus worsening his or her condition...What is critical to
>> understand is that acknowleding a patient with DID to have genuine
>> experience of alters as real people or entities is not the same as
>> stating that alters are actually real people or entities. An analogy
>> with another mental disorder may help clarify the distinction. Many
>> individuals with anorexia nervosa state that they experience
themselves
>> as obese, even though they are emaciated. To tell such a patient
>> that one understands and believes that he or she expereinces the
>> self in that fashion is not the same as understanding that he or
>> she is truly obese...Most mental health professionals would probably
>> argue that it would be inappropriate to tell a patient with anorexia
>> nervosa that one simply does not believe his or her perceptions
>> (p. 48)
>
>There is also a difference between ignoring "alters" (saying "I will
only
>speak to your 'core' personality")
And how does one determine the "core personality" and what makes you
think they can or will speak?
and telling someone their "alters" are not
>real.
>
>>
>> Gleaves argues that not addressing the DID condition witha specific
>> treatment may result in interminable treatment. He calls this
>> phenomenon "iatrogenesis by neglect" (p. 54)
>
>It can also be argued that the approach of not addressing DID has
been
>effective.
Okay........
Perhaps dealing with the client's more mundane life problems
>brings them back to reality.
Again the use of the word "mundane"...........curious. You must have
read something new.
So you say.............
Crisis
Mark Morin
>
> In article <6rkifr$139q$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
[...]
> >But that is not where the claims begin. The claim, for the existence of
> >DID, is that it is caused by trauma. If it is, then it should not become
> >obvious only during therapy and only with therapists who believe in
> >DID. If it is obvious only then, then it is still a function of those
> >particular therapists.
>
> This certainly makes sense. (Although I'm still curious how the therapist
> causes time lapses.)
An alternative perspective:
A few years back I had my stomach rebuilt because of GastroEsophogeal
Reflux Disorder (GERD). For the three years prior to that I had been
going through a large bottle of Rolaids a month and I was vomitting an
average of three times a day. My PC found some ulceration in the
duodenum and started me on ulcer meds. No effect. I was finally
referred to a gastroenterologist who made the dx of GERD and referred me
for surgery. So, in the past three years, I have not had heartburn
once, have not vomitted once and have not needed as much as one rolaid.
Did I not have GERD until it was dx'd? Should I be concerned that a
high percentage of this gastroenterologist's patients have GERD? Yes to
the first question and no to the second. How does this apply to DID?
People go into treatment because of symptoms. Those symptoms may or may
not have a name to them. It is a bit presumptuous to expect a client to
walk in with a fully formed diagnosis. That is after all our
job--diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Should I be overly
concerned that someone who specializes in DID makes more of this
diagnosis than others? IMHO, no. I should not be *overly*
concerned--no more than I was concerned that my gastroenterologist was
finding something that may not have been there (and I did receive a
second opinion).
Mark
--
=====================================================================
My life is weaving an intricate, necessary pattern that is uniquely
mine. I will be grateful for the experiences of today that give my
tapestry its beauty.
Olavi Noronen
Long), <35e1a7ba....@news.pacbell.net>,wrote:
>Just FYI, most of the multiples I know would really resent that
>question. Just as they need to accept all of themselves, so do you
>need to accept all of them, as a single entity as well as being
>"separate" to a certain degree.
Dear Kathleen,
My example can be beneficial only in some mild cases.
>Over time you will recognize the differences. Be patient, and you'll
>know. Asking seems rude somehow.
Yes, if it is repeated, and meant intentionally rude.
In some situations it is beneficial to push somebody's self importance
with "rude" approach.
If, like in the case I told, a person gives up the mask, and lets
the real emotion to appear, there is absolutely no reason to push
her/him. If a therapist does not automatically shift to observing
and/or compassion there is something wrong in emotional competence.
Without any rude thoughts,
Olli
Olavi Noronen
<35E1EE7C...@ucsd.edu>, schrieb:
>How do you know that the person who is 'chosen' to be the shaman is
>not a person who does the switching 'naturally' and hence is identified
>as being close to the spirit world, then by the process of training and
>initiation required for most shamen, the person can take on the personalities
>at will.
Dear John,
Surely there are those "chosen" shamans among 'chosen' samans.
There are cult preachers who had become "chosen" in order to escape
their inner unfinished stuff.
>Also, those who the shaman teats who are 'possessed' are perhaps
>persons who 'suffer' from what more 'moderns' would call DID/MPD.
I believe that there are many types of shamans as there are many types
of psychiatrists and physicians.
In our country psychiatrists and physicians commit suicide more than
in any other profession. (Lindeman, Sari: Suicide Among Physicians.
Department of Psychiatry. University of Oulu 1997.)
With this I mean that surely there are also shamans who suffer from
different problems.
>In primitives societies often 'odd' characteristics are formalized and
>'accepted' by some means. For example, boys or girls who do
>not take to the traditional roles have an alternative of being identified
>as a Man or Woman, depending on their inclinations, at least that is the
>case in some of the native american tribes.
One good (and recommended) book which I have read about your medicine
men is:
Deer, Lame & Erdoes, Richard: Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions - The Life
of A Sioux Medicine Man. Simon and Shuster. New York 1972.
"I have often thought about the special effect liquor has on us
Indians. In two hundred years we still haven't learned how to handle
it. It is just like the measles and other diseases the white man
brought us. The illness was the same for them as for us, but we died
from it, while for them it was usually just a few days of discomfort.
I figured out a few reasons for our drinking. They might not be the
right ones; I'm just speculating. We call liquor mni wakanholy water.
I guess visions were so important and sacred to us that having our
minds altered and befuddled by whisky impressed us in the beginning
like a religious experience ' a dream, a vision. It didn't take much
to make us drunk; it still doesn't.
[...]
But you can't blame our drinking nowadays on a desire to have visions,
or say that we guzzle the stuff because it is holy-though I want to
tell you that even glassy-eyed winos often hold up their bottles and
spill a little of the precious stuff on the ground for the spirits of
the departed, saying, "Here, my friend who left us, here's something
for you," or "Here, my old girl friend who died, share this drink with
me."
So here is the question: Why do Indians drink? They drink to forget,
I think, to forget the great days when this land was ours and when it
was beautiful, without highways, billboards, fences and factories.
They try to forget the pitiful shacks and rusting trailers which are
their "homes." They try to forget that they are treated like children,
not like grown-up people. In those new O.E.O. houses-instant slums I
call them, because they fall apart even before they are finished-you
can't have a visitor after ten o'clock, or have a relative staying
overnight. We are even told what color we must paint them and what
kind of curtains we must put up. Nor are we allowed to have our own
money to spend as we see fit. So we drink because we are minors, not
men. We try to forget that even our fenced-in reservations no longer
belong to us. We have to lease them to white ranchers who fatten
their cattle, and themselves, on our land.
[...]
We drink to forget that there is nothing worthwhile for a man to do,
nothing that would bring honor or make him feel good inside.
[...]
We have a bird out here, about the size and shape of a pigeon. It has
a circle on each side of its head. It doesn't chirp. Whenever it
opens its beak it makes a sound like a fart. The white man calls it a
night hawk. We call it pisbko. This bird doesn't build a nest. It
doesn't take care of its chicks. The pisbko drops its eggs any place,
in a ditch or on the highway. Some winos are like that, forgetting
that they have kids to take care of, letting them hatch themselves
out. They talk big in public and have a big mouth but very little
wisdom. But who is to blame? Who will let them be anything else but
what they are?
I am no wino or pisbko, but I am no saint either. A medicine man
shouldn't be a saint. He should experience and feel all the ups and
downs, the despair and joy, the magic and the reality, the courage and
the fear, of his people. He should be able to sink as low as a bug,
or soar as high as an eagle. Unless he can experience both, he is no
good as a medicine man.
Sickness, jail, poverty, getting drunk-I had to experience all that
myself. Sinning makes the world go round. You can't be so stuck up,
so inhuman that you want to be pure, your soul wrapped up in a plastic
bag, all the time. You have to be God and the devil, both of them.
Being a good medicine man means being right in the midst of the
turmoil, not shielding yourself from it. It means experiencing life
in all its phases. It means not being afraid of cutting up and playing
the fool now and then. That's sacred too.
Nature, the Great Spirit-they are not perfect. The world couldn't
stand that perfection. The spirit has a good side and a bad side.
Sometimes the bad side gives me more knowledge than the good side."
- Lame Deer
Best,
Olavi Noronen
<6rsv7o$66a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,wrote:
>> Sometimes I ask from a client: "Who are you?" when she/he enters in.
>
>This is inappropriate and encourages the disorder.
This type of question can be useful when there is no "disorder". It
can be useful in mild "disorders". It can be useful in other
situations.
Sometimes I have had very strong possession type cases. And in them
the question can be quite normal; I want to know with whome I am
talking.
> And of course this
>question would be totally inappropriate and suggestive in nature to say to
>someone who has never been diagnosed with it.
This makes me to think that you have false assumptions.
>All I can say to the following recitation is that it is an example of how
>multiple personality disorder is created in therapy. I guess what amazes and
>appalls me is that you would openly recount this exchange, apparently proud
>of your expertise, when what you should be is ashamed at the pain you are
>causing your own clients.
This also makes me to think that you have false assumptions.
Olavi Noronen
<dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
<6rrv87$aoo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
>I posted a response on sppm. I really don't want to be involved in
>any more of the directions of these threads that involved personalization
>of the issues. I hope you don't mind.
I understand Dan. There are so many programs which cannot reprogram
itselves.
cc...@tir.com
gtv...@aol.com (GTV3419) wrote:
> In article <6rkifr$139q$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
>
> >the rate of individuals who complain of DID symptoms when they first
> >present to the therapist is not so high. The majority are only aware
> >of such symptoms after they have been in therapy.
>
> Boy, I am truly living in a vacuum! If one is not aware of the symptoms
> before entering therapy, why enter therapy for the symptoms? One of my most
> difficult symptoms is missed time . . . I'm curious. How can one enter therapy
> without missing time and then in therapy start missing time? I can see that
> this is perhaps your point, but I don't see how a therapist can cause a person
> not missing time to miss time?
It is possible the person comes to view normal lapses in memory as abnormal
and "missing time." We hold events in our memories more than "time." Or
such experiences as driving a daily route, getting home, and not remembering
the drive (a common experience to many people) as "missing time."
Donna
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e7b5c...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On 24 Aug 1998 15:01:27 GMT "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D."
><dlro...@frontiernet.net>,
><6rrv87$aoo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,wrote:
>
>>I posted a response on sppm. I really don't want to be involved in
>>any more of the directions of these threads that involved personalization
>>of the issues. I hope you don't mind.
>
>I understand Dan. There are so many programs which cannot reprogram
>itselves.
Why is no one objecting to the dehumanization implied by Olli's reference to
posters here as computer programs? Does no one find this offensive?
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e4b59...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:07:20 GMT cc...@tir.com,
><6rsv7o$66a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,wrote:
>
>
>>> Sometimes I ask from a client: "Who are you?" when she/he enters in.
>>
>>This is inappropriate and encourages the disorder.
>
>This type of question can be useful when there is no "disorder". It
>can be useful in mild "disorders". It can be useful in other
>situations.
>
Donna's point is that the question, by its phrasing, creates a demand to be
someone else. It implies that someone can be other than themselves, that
there is a possibility for them to be other people, and that the therapist
expects them sometimes to be those other people. If this were not true, why
would the therapist ask such a question?
There is a great deal of research showing that clients try to meet the
expectations of therapists and try to please them. If you give a suggestion
to your client that you expect them to be different people on different
occasions, many will attempt to comply. Whether it is useful for them to be
different people is another question, but you should be aware that you are
influencing their behavior with the question you ask.
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
GTV3419 wrote in message
<199808250510...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6rkifr$139q$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, "Dan L. Rogers,
Ph.D."
><dlro...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>Boy, I am truly living in a vacuum! If one is not aware of the symptoms
>before entering therapy, why enter therapy for the symptoms? One of my
most
>difficult symptoms is missed time . . . I'm curious. How can one enter
therapy
>without missing time and then in therapy start missing time? I can see
that
>this is perhaps your point, but I don't see how a therapist can cause a
person
>not missing time to miss time?
A therapist can make someone aware that they have been missing time for
quite a while without realizing it. There are other people who miss time
without being aware of it who cannot be made aware that they are missing
time, because the faculties that would permit them to be aware of their lost
time are also damaged. Further, a therapist can cause anyone to miss time
by hypnotizing them and giving them a suggestion to forget what has occurred
during the time they were hypnotized. The easiest way to cause someone
unaware of missed time to become aware of it is to ask them a question about
what they were doing during a period of time that they cannot remember. All
people have missed time for the period before the age of 3 -- it is called
childhood amnesia. Many people miss time when their attention is focused
elsewhere, such as when daydreaming or "spacing out." Missed time is a
normal, everyday memory phenomena. By misinterpreting normal instances of
missed time (also called forgetting), someone can come to believe that they
have time gaps when they are simply experiencing the same phenomena as
everyone else does. They can also learn to create them by directing their
attention away from externals. Part of the controversy about time gaps is
not whether they exist, but how to interpret them.
Time gap is a form of memory loss. There are some very interesting
disorders resulting from brain injury where the symptom is the lack of
awareness of the disorder. These frequently occur with frontal lobe
injuries because the frontal lobes are involved in meta-memory,
self-monitoring, consciousness, and self-awareness. If those areas are
damaged, the result is loss of that awareness. For example, someone with
hemineglect can look in a mirror and only shave half the face, then when
asked about it insist that they shaved everything, totally unaware of their
deficit. You can also have people with severe language deficits, memory
deficits, and so on, and also a lack of emotional distress and concern about
the deficits, or even a lack of awareness that the deficit exists. When
asked a question requiring memory, for example, the person confabulates --
making up a fantastic answer. The person is not lying in the usual sense of
the word, but also not aware that the answer given is not only incorrect,
but perhaps even wildly implausible. The frontal lobes are also involved in
monitoring the passage of time and in time-sequencing -- determination of
what came before what temporally. We take time for granted, but it is
perceived using cognitive processes, just as the other things we are aware
of depend on mental processes. So, it is very possible for someone to
experience time gaps without being aware that they are having such gaps, or
to experience time sequencing problems without being aware of their deficit.
Awareness of a deficit can sometimes be acquired with feedback from outside
the individual. If a person is directed to try to remember a time period,
they may realize then that they cannot recall it. If they never made the
attempt to recall, then they may never have experienced a memory failure.
It is the experience of trying and failing to remember that causes one to
realize they cannot remember. Similarly, if I recall something but it is
incorrect (for example, comes from a different situation or time period), I
will not realize that it is incorrect unless I am confronted with correct
information or told by someone else that I am wrong.
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
Kimberly Barnard wrote in message <6rtckd$llo$1...@news2.alpha.net>...
>
Olli wrote:
snip
>>> Before I had read the Loftus' article one of my clients had done just
>>> like Loftus have suggested: "even to look through picture albums from
>>> vacations and birthdays". She brought me a photo from her childhood:
>>> http://www.netti.fi/scorpitos/articles/vaaruno.htm
>>> (Vaarallista unohtamista = Forgetting Dangerously)
>>> The article is partly Finnish, but at the bottom you will see the
>>> photo. Isn't the girl nice? She may be too old to put into a playpen,
>>> but she is cute. Nice shoes. Nice dress. Reading something. And so
>>> nicely tied in the corner of playpen - with clean and nice leather
>>> band. Isn't this cute?!
>
>
>I looked at that picture and it bothers me. I thought the whole idea for
the
>playpen was to contain a toddler, so why the leather strap? A child this
age
>can sit on her own unless there is some physical or developmental problem.
Olli says the child is perhaps too old to put in a playpen. If the child is
capable of climbing out of the playpen, then the strap is likely to restrain
her from doing so.
The point of a playpen is to keep a child safe. If the child can get out of
the playpen, then the child will not be safe. What evil purpose does Olli
think the strap performs? Does Olli mean to suggest that restraining a
child is abuse? How does he feel about child car seats? They contain many
straps and many children dislike them and cry when placed in them. Is this
abuse? Should the children be left unrestrained because they cry or because
straps are used? Is the strap better for the child if it is pink nylon with
little flowers on it, compared to leather? How long has the child been
sitting with the strap around her? Can you tell from a picture? Why was
the picture taken -- maybe grandma requested it? Would the child have sat
still for a picture without the strap or was the strap perhaps used solely
for taking the picture but not otherwise used at all? How would you know
that -- it does sound like the child is dressed up for photo taking? Is
there an assumption being made about whether this was a one-time or regular
practice?
There is a tradeoff between safety and developmental needs for autonomy,
exploration, and play. Abuse occurs when restraint interferes with
development. How parents resolve that tradeoff depends on the environment,
the child, and the parents ability to provide continuous supervision. It
also depends on their income. A parent with lots of money can hire
babysitters, place their child in day care, child proof their home, or
permit someone to stay home and watch the child in an unrestricted play
space. A parent with less money must improvise and some of the methods they
use may be "disturbing" to those with better solutions. I would not presume
to judge whether the child in the photo is being abused simply because there
is a leather strap (belt?) in the picture without knowing more about the
circumstances, especially given that Olli suggests the child is too old to
be effectively restrained by a playpen (she is "reading something"). I
would be much more concerned if she were not reading something but were
staring blankly into space. This is part of the danger of making
interpretations of photos in photo albums -- where is the knowledge of
context that would permit you to accurately interpret the photo? If you are
of a mind to see abuse everywhere, you will surely see it in a situation
where a child is restrained in a non-traditional manner, but is that
interpretation warranted?
Nancy
John M Price
: On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 19:03:35 GMT kplong...@worldnet.att.net (K
: Long), <35e1a7ba....@news.pacbell.net>,wrote:
: >Just FYI, most of the multiples I know would really resent that
: >question. Just as they need to accept all of themselves, so do you
: >need to accept all of them, as a single entity as well as being
: >"separate" to a certain degree.
: Dear Kathleen,
: My example can be beneficial only in some mild cases.
Apparently like demon possession, as you mention in another post.
Sheesh.
[snip]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this
because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon
both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them.
- Steve Eley
Olavi Noronen
<35e1f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>From what you have posted, the Loftus book does not sound like a scientific
>work. It sounds like it was written as a popular book (for a lay audience)
>to promote her own point of view and to convince others on social and
>political issues.
[...]
>This
>book does not sound like a report of her academic research but instead a
>book giving her opinions about false memory and therapy.
Nancy,
I think I have a clue what do you mean.
> For example, you
>cannot take the writings of Noam Chomsky on politics as representative of
>his views on linguistics, nor the works of Linus Pauling on topics outside
>of physics.
But Loftus does research on memory, and in this book she writes about
memory, implanted memories. I see this a bit different.
She writes about false memories, but not about accurate recalled
memories. Is this a scientist's message to lay people; there are no
accurate recalled memories?
They way she expresses to lay people how she had succeeded to implant
proved false memories leads me to ask how biased are her scientific
works on memory.
Human mind is so multidimensional that if any scientist has attitudes
like Loftus seem to have against therapist and some issues on memory
in public it leads me to question and wonder how it affects her
scientific work.
I have seen 2-3 cases where personal issues have affected scientific
work.
I have had some professors and assistant professors as clients, and
heard a many interesting, but not so good things, about scientific
climate in few universities.
Now I see Loftus spreading for lay people her opinions which are
related to her work and which are clearly biased.
In her book she does not mention that she is board member of FMSF.
What kind of signal it gives if a scientist has this kind of
membership, and there is no scientific evidence on 'false memory
syndrome'. (If there is, please, correct me. According to what I have
read FMSF tried first to offer the syndrome as a syndrome among
therapists, and later among their clients.)
Being a member of private "false memory" foundation, being (according
what I have read) an expert witness only for defense in those cases
where defence claims that memories of sexual abuse are false and
having left away that recolled memories can also be true - all these,
and many other things make me to ask how much her bias affects her
scientific work.
You have read Schacter's book on memory. Maybe you have read Freyd's
book Betrayal Trauma, and when you read Loftus' book, you will see (an
assumption) clearly different tone in it, compared with two others.
>Yet these individuals are still great scientists and their
>scientific work stands on the strength of its empirical evidence. For you
>to condemn science on the basis of a non-scientific book suggests that you
>do not know the difference between what is science and what is opinion.
I hope I can learn it some day.
As a lay man I assume that science is mostly pure mathematics, clear
empirical evidence. As a human, and as an experienced therapist, I
assume that scientist's personality and biases affects the way s/he
uses the mathematics.
One Finnish scientist showed with clear empirical evidence that
certain changes in locus coeruleus was connected to panic disorder.
When I talked with her, before her work was spread to public, she
clearly told to me that as a psychiatrist she had noted how
dysfunctional family environment was very common with people suffering
from panic disorder. Afterwards, she _never_ mentioned that in her
interviews what she had told to me. Later I saw that she had written a
guide book which was published by a drug company. And you may guess
that no psychological factors were mentioned even though the onset of
panic is generally related to environmental or psychological factors.
Again later I heard some people wondering how she was able to
repeteadly tell about biological approaches to panic disorder in one
certain newspaper. Then I was told that her husband is the
editor-in-chief of that newspaper. Then, two years ago, I conducted a
course on social fears in the same town where she lives and works. Two
participants told during the course that they had diagnostized panic
disorder. They both had been research participants in a drug research,
and they had met that psychiatrist many times. They both had always
remembered sexual abuse and other severe abuse in their childhood.
They both told that the psychiatrist had strongly leaded the
discussion away from their childhood. They both had the opinion that
the psychiatrist had behaved unethically when she was not willing at
all to discuss about the circumstances which as both patient thought,
were related to their panic attacks. This all gave me one example of
the mixture of science and a scientist.
My children went to bed. Our dog is also in his bed. Now I go to bed.
I will read a little. After it I will relax the skin of my back
because it causes the descent of eyelids on my eyes. This procedure
may be related to altered state of consciousness (which lasts many
hours) because when I start to return to typical consciousness I find
movements in my eyelids.
Good night,
Sisyphus
Nancy,
I think the "computer program" analogy is a joke. I think Olli is a
joke.
I think Brad is a joke. I think TFT is a joke....and so on.
I disregard jokes that are repeated ad nauseum.
However, I don't like the abuse that Dan has been taking. He's a fine
person and a fine clinician. I've never, repeat never, had a problem
with Dan even when we have disagreed.
GO DAN.
Norm
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35ec1507...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:42:18 -0000 "Nancy Alvarado" <st...@binus.com>,
><35e1f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
snip
>> For example, you
>>cannot take the writings of Noam Chomsky on politics as representative of
>>his views on linguistics, nor the works of Linus Pauling on topics outside
>>of physics.
>
>But Loftus does research on memory, and in this book she writes about
>memory, implanted memories. I see this a bit different.
>
>She writes about false memories, but not about accurate recalled
>memories. Is this a scientist's message to lay people; there are no
>accurate recalled memories?
Paul Ekman wrote a simple, nonscholarly book called "Unmasking the Face,"
intended to guide nurses, teachers and others who work with people in
recognizing emotional meanings of facial expressions. It was not a book of
opinion, but was also not a scholarly book because it did not include
technical language, did not cite evidence to support statements, and did not
present pros and cons of controversies. Similarly, Jerry Kagan has written
simple articles for parents about shyness in children, what causes it and
how to help a very shy child. He did not write it in scholarly language,
include references, or refer to controversies in his field either. To
critique either of these products as though they were scholarly academic
works and finding them deficient would be wrong. Such works, even though
written by eminent authorities in their areas of research, are not
scientific and should not be judged as such. Loftus cares strongly about
false memory. She has written a book expressing her concerns about a
socio-political issue, drawing on her research and research in the field.
If the book is not even-handed, does not present pros and cons, does not
provide evidence to support arguments, it is not a scholarly or academic
work. I think you are correct that something that has the words "The myth
of...[fill in the blank]" is not likely to be scholarly.
I will repeat that I have not seen this book. I have seen several of
Loftus's articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. They do not have the
deficiencies you catalogued.
>
>They way she expresses to lay people how she had succeeded to implant
>proved false memories leads me to ask how biased are her scientific
>works on memory.
>
>Human mind is so multidimensional that if any scientist has attitudes
>like Loftus seem to have against therapist and some issues on memory
>in public it leads me to question and wonder how it affects her
>scientific work.
Fortunately, the work of any scientist can be examined and replicated by
other researchers who doubt the findings. The more controversial the work,
the more likely this is to happen. The work done by Loftus has been
replicated now by many researchers, who have produced consistent findings
with hers. You do not need to wonder.
>
>I have seen 2-3 cases where personal issues have affected scientific
>work.
>
>I have had some professors and assistant professors as clients, and
>heard a many interesting, but not so good things, about scientific
>climate in few universities.
So what? Scientific knowledge does not depend on one study or even one
university. It is a collective effort and flawed research will not stand up
to criticism or replication.
>
>Now I see Loftus spreading for lay people her opinions which are
>related to her work and which are clearly biased.
Loftus has opinions. She also has evidence. Her opinions may be biased,
but her findings are empirical and can be objectively evaluated on their own
merit. That is like saying that an astronomer is biased because he thinks
the sun goes around the earth, not vice versa. He may think what he wishes,
but the sun is there for anyone to observe, and the observations will speak
for themselves. Similarly, Loftus's experiments can be done by anyone and
the results will speak for themselves, and have done so many times.
>
>In her book she does not mention that she is board member of FMSF.
So what?
>
>What kind of signal it gives if a scientist has this kind of
>membership, and there is no scientific evidence on 'false memory
>syndrome'. (If there is, please, correct me. According to what I have
>read FMSF tried first to offer the syndrome as a syndrome among
>therapists, and later among their clients.)
I doubt that Loftus agrees with you that there is no scientific evidence of
false memory syndrome. I think there is plenty of evidence that false
memories occur, and have occurred. The statement that there is no
scientific evidence refers to calling it a syndrome, and depends on what we
mean by syndrome and how syndromes get classified as such for diagnostic
purposes, not on the existence of cases of false memory. I do not know much
about FMSF -- I am not a member and have not followed their history and
doings.
>
>Being a member of private "false memory" foundation, being (according
>what I have read) an expert witness only for defense in those cases
>where defence claims that memories of sexual abuse are false and
>having left away that recolled memories can also be true - all these,
>and many other things make me to ask how much her bias affects her
>scientific work.
This criticism has been addressed here before. The prosecution would be
unlikely to hire an expert like Loftus because it doesn't fit their
courtroom strategies. What she does in the courtroom has little to do with
her scientific work. Frankly, I find your use of the word "bias"
inappropriate, when we are essentially talking about differing opinions
here. She holds opinions and beliefs different than yours. There are no
people without opinions, especially concerning their work. To call such
opinions "bias" implies that she deliberately falsifies or in some way rigs
her findings to suit her opinions. I think there is no evidence of that,
but the check against it is that other people without her same opinions have
been able to produce the same findings in their own studies.
>
>You have read Schacter's book on memory. Maybe you have read Freyd's
>book Betrayal Trauma, and when you read Loftus' book, you will see (an
>assumption) clearly different tone in it, compared with two others.
Yes, I have read Schacter's book. I will not be reading Freyd's book.
>
>>Yet these individuals are still great scientists and their
>>scientific work stands on the strength of its empirical evidence. For you
>>to condemn science on the basis of a non-scientific book suggests that you
>>do not know the difference between what is science and what is opinion.
>
>I hope I can learn it some day.
I highly recommend reading the book "How to Think Straight About
Psychology," written by Keith Stanovich (1998).
>
>As a lay man I assume that science is mostly pure mathematics, clear
>empirical evidence. As a human, and as an experienced therapist, I
>assume that scientist's personality and biases affects the way s/he
>uses the mathematics.
What you neglect here is the role of the witness in science. Science is a
public activity and there are corrective procedures built-in to prevent bias
and personality from leading us astray (for long). These corrective
processes include peer-review, publication, review by ethics committees,
accessibility to data by interested others, clear statements of
operationalization and procedures used and the voluntary sharing of both
data and training, critique and commentary, and replication. No scientist
works alone, but all are part of a community.
>One Finnish scientist showed with clear empirical evidence that
>certain changes in locus coeruleus was connected to panic disorder.
Anyone can find examples of unethical behavior (in any field). This person
may succeed in promoting or publishing findings, but they will not stand up
to future tests by other scientists, and they will not lead to further
advances in knowledge if they are incorrect. What will happen is that many
people will waste time trying to find out why her findings cannot be
reproduced and ultimately decide they were wrong. This process is expensive
but it prevents us from incorporating incorrect findings into the body of
knowledge.
Nancy
(crisisgal)
>
>In article <199808250510...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> gtv...@aol.com (GTV3419) wrote:
example,
>> >the rate of individuals who complain of DID symptoms when they
first
>> >present to the therapist is not so high. The majority are only
aware
>> >of such symptoms after they have been in therapy.
>>
symptoms
>> before entering therapy, why enter therapy for the symptoms? One of
my most
>> difficult symptoms is missed time . . . I'm curious. How can one
enter therapy
>> without missing time and then in therapy start missing time? I can
see that
>> this is perhaps your point, but I don't see how a therapist can
cause a person
>> not missing time to miss time?
>
abnormal
>and "missing time."
No they are distinctly different and very frightening. Losing time
would never be mistaken for a normal lapse in memory. They didn't
cover explaining that on Prime Time Live.
We hold events in our memories more than "time." Or
>such experiences as driving a daily route, getting home, and not
remembering
>the drive (a common experience to many people) as "missing time."
Again your ignorance of the disorder is shining through and it makes
you look silly in this instance.
Crisis
Olavi Noronen
<35e2f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>Donna's point is that the question, by its phrasing, creates a demand to be
>someone else.
Nancy,
Supposedly she does not know much about psychotherapy.
May I ask from you: Do you have experience on it?
> It implies that someone can be other than themselves,
Almost all people _are_ other than themselves, and we have to account
this reality if we want to ask changes in human behavior and inherent
experiences.
> that
>there is a possibility for them to be other people, and that the therapist
>expects them sometimes to be those other people.
If we make the question to somebody: "Are you grazy?!" it does not
mean that we expect him to be grazy.
> If this were not true, why
>would the therapist ask such a question?
As you saw I think that your theories are not true.
There are so many cases where a person is divided into two parts.
In selfhatred there is a hater and a hated personality.
When you "talk to yourself" there is a talker and a target.
You make 16000 thoughts during a day, and there are thousands of
non-beneficial thoughts. You cannot stop them even for a minute, and
you do not know where they come from - and you think that you are
yourself.
Your thoughts are controlling you. A controlled person is not
*himself*.
>There is a great deal of research showing that clients try to meet the
>expectations of therapists and try to please them. If you give a suggestion
>to your client that you expect them to be different people on different
>occasions, many will attempt to comply.
This again makes me to think that you do not have much experience on
therapy. If you have, please, correct me.
When I clearly see that a person is not him/herself there is no
suggestion if I ask: "Who are you?"
Many people use here mockery. It means that they are not themselves.
A person, who is in real connection to the self within, does not need
mockery, blaming, labeling, withdrawal, indifference, arrogance or
hostile attitudes.
>you should be aware that you are
>influencing their behavior with the question you ask.
Yes, it is my intentional purpose.
When a person becomes aware of those two (or three) different parts of
personality, different personalities, he has much better possibilities
to become aware of their roots, and becoming aware of roots can lead
to integration.
When I feel selfpity there is absolutely not only one personality who
feels selfpity.
In "shouldism", which is a wider religion than buddhism or hinduism
together, one tells himself that "I should". There are at least two
parts.
When you are nervous there are at least two parts. You are running
fast between them.
For example in shame; there is an inherent accuser and an inherent
accused.
- Who are you?
+ An accuser.
- What do you like about accused?
+ I hate you. You are so weak. You spoil my opportunities. You are jus
a weeping bastard!
- Who are you?
+ An accused.
- How do you feel toward accuser?
+ I am afraid of him, Even if I make a small mistake he starts to
blame at me. I feel myself so lonely, so weak. No one likes me.
- Do you want to say something to him.
+ No. I'm so afraid of him. He has similar voice with my father.
- If you knew that I would protect you what would you say to the
accuser?
When we continue there is a way to integration, and it is very
different what Donna assumed.
Snipped shlees (like John would say) =8-)
[even I don't know what it does mean]
Olavi Noronen
<35e30fd3.0@calwebnnrp>,wrote:
>Apparently like demon possession, as you mention in another post.
Dear John,
I did not mention "demon possession". I wrote "possession type".
Secondly, you may not be familiar with the techniques used in Gestalt
therapy.
>Sheesh.
>[snip]
Can you clarify what is "snipped shees"?
Olavi Noronen
<35e2f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>>I understand Dan. There are so many programs which cannot reprogram
>>itselves.
>
>
>Why is no one objecting to the dehumanization implied by Olli's reference to
>posters here as computer programs? Does no one find this offensive?
Dear Nancy,
Did you find it offensive?
It was not my real meaning?
I hope you let me to clarify.
Most of us or all of us make inner decisions. It is my voluntary
decision when I behave correctly. When I disvalue or mock someone the
act is my voluntary decision.
We have hundreds and thousands of inner decisions. We can call it
programming. We have an inner manuscript.
With my metaphor I tried to wake up those posters who have programmed
themselves to use verbal abuse.
Verbal abuse is very common human act. I do not like it. I see it
harmful.
Sincerely,
Olavi Noronen
<6rsrv4$2ik$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,wrote:
>As far as the photo you seem to think proves abuse,
Donna,
Pure photo does not prove anything. Someone could claim that I have
manipulated it with my programs. Maybe there was no band at all in the
original photo!?
> I don't think you can
>make that kind of judgment without further information.
I got a lot of that.
>The child is not
>distressed and seems to be reading a book quite contently.
Even many adults who have been severely abused in childhood are "so
nice people" in situations where being nice is abnormal behavior.
Maybe you have not read about codepency, and how people use so many
things to please other people.
>Perhaps the
>"seatbelt" was only there for the purpose of keeping her in that cute pose
>for the photograph.
Do you know anything about the emotions my client felt when she found
that photo?
How many mature adults use this kind of method?
Do you really think that this kind of behavior is not violating
child's rights?
>Did anyone bother to ask the parents about it?
Yes!
> And as
>for her being "too old for a playpen," that is a matter of opinion and can
>differ from child to child.
Yes, it is really a matter of opinion. For a child this kind of
opinion is in most cases harmful.
> For you to present this photo as proof of abuse
>tells me much about your bias.
How does it tell so? Do you know all the information I have?
Olavi Noronen
<barn...@uwp.edu>, <6rtckd$llo$1...@news2.alpha.net>,wrote:
>I looked at that picture and it bothers me. I thought the whole idea for the
>playpen was to contain a toddler, so why the leather strap? A child this age
>can sit on her own unless there is some physical or developmental problem.
There war not those problems. See my response to Nancy.
>(Donna-- hold the child in position for a picture? Are you serious?)
>
>I don't know if it proves "abuse" -- whether the child was often restrained
>this way or whether this picture shows the 'tip of the iceberg'... surely
>this photo contains an important metaphor for your client, Olli.
Dear Kym,
It does. The circumstances there were quite awful.
There was a lot of abuse and dysfunction in her family.
Once she had in therapy session an experience where she experienced as
laying on the floor while something mildy damp cloth was hold on her
mouth. Later this experience occurred agai. She said that she also
felt the smell of tobacco or pipe tobacco.
She had asked from her mother whether his father ussed to smoke. Her
mother had told that the father did not smoke in those days. Later my
client brought an old photo where his father was sitting on a terrace
- and smoking pipe.
This was an example of false memory - mother's.
>I wonder if in your country some parents use leashes to control their
>children or not.
They are really rare.
When our sons were very young I used a special backpack, built for
this use. It was changed into a chair in a few seconds. Wheels could
be set in a moment, and then it was portable vehicle. They enjoyed to
sit there. They saw a lot. they were near me. I could carry them to
anywhere.
In those days (1983-1985) I was almost the only father in our town
(population 160000) who used it. I have never seen similar. I still
have it.
> I really hate to see that, but I don't know whether to say
>that it is abusive.
When children are young one must give up from many things, activities,
hobbies, sport, movies, meeting friends, wearing top clothes etc.
There are a lot of people who do not that, or at least many fathers
who do not change their life style. It is abusive.
I think many people could cope with children if they enter to
child's world.
> I suppose a mother with a hyperactive child who must
>enter a crowded shopping mall with the child may feel she must resort to
>this for the child's safety.
What has made a child to be hyperactive??!
(Or do you mean children's normal "hyperactivity"?)
> But it still bothers me.
I can imagine that.
I think many adults should need leashes, and because they are not in
use it is abusive for people around.
Babbling,
Olavi Noronen
<35e30...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>Olli says the child is perhaps too old to put in a playpen. If the child is
>capable of climbing out of the playpen, then the strap is likely to restrain
>her from doing so.
???!
>The point of a playpen is to keep a child safe. If the child can get out of
>the playpen, then the child will not be safe. What evil purpose does Olli
>think the strap performs?
???!
>Does Olli mean to suggest that restraining a
>child is abuse? How does he feel about child car seats?
???!
>They contain many
>straps and many children dislike them and cry when placed in them. Is this
>abuse? Should the children be left unrestrained because they cry or because
>straps are used? Is the strap better for the child if it is pink nylon with
>little flowers on it, compared to leather? How long has the child been
>sitting with the strap around her? Can you tell from a picture?
[...]
>This is part of the danger of making
>interpretations of photos in photo albums -- where is the knowledge of
>context that would permit you to accurately interpret the photo? If you are
>of a mind to see abuse everywhere, you will surely see it in a situation
>where a child is restrained in a non-traditional manner, but is that
>interpretation warranted?
There were a lot of things the mother did for safe and educate the
children.
She protected the child even from ghosts. She checked very often the
closets in kitchen, and wardrobes, because there might have been bad
spirits.
I hope you do not ask now: "What evil purpose does Olli think the
weekly spirit hunting performs?"
Being surprised,
Olavi Noronen
>> >>I posted a response on sppm. I really don't want to be involved in
>> >>any more of the directions of these threads that involved personalization
>> >>of the issues. I hope you don't mind.
I wrote
>> >I understand Dan. There are so many programs which cannot reprogram
>> >itselves.
Nancy wrote
>> Why is no one objecting to the dehumanization implied by Olli's reference to
>> posters here as computer programs? Does no one find this offensive?
Norm wrote:
>I think the "computer program" analogy is a joke. I think Olli is a
>joke.
>I think Brad is a joke. I think TFT is a joke....and so on.
>I disregard jokes that are repeated ad nauseum.
To be honest I am a bit curiousto know whether I am set in the
category of good or bad jokes.
>However, I don't like the abuse that Dan has been taking. He's a fine
>person and a fine clinician. I've never, repeat never, had a problem
>with Dan even when we have disagreed.
More important from my side is to clarify - in order to avoid possible
misunderstandings.
I am not sure, Norm, whether you understood that I meant Dan with
"programs". I did not. I understood that Dan wanted to shift to sspm
to avoid some personalization he had experienced before. I tried to
signal him that the change is ok for me, and that I have seen here so
many personalizations and attacks by "self-programmed people".
Best,
mix...@my-dejanews.com
Furthermore, Spira is the editor of the book but Daniel J.Siegel wrote the
chapter.
In article <35e1caa8.0@calwebnnrp>,
John M Price <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote:
> And even his own son disagrees with this diagnosis.
>
> In article <6rrr61$o3k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : See "Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder", James L.Spira, editor,
> : Jossey-Boss Publishers......chapter 2, "Dissociation, Psychotherapy and the
> : Cognitive Sciences" written by Daniel J. Siegel.
>
> : I am not a psychologist but I live with DID everyday of my life. My wife is
> : DID and there is no doubt in my mind that what is written in the pages of
> : that chapter make sense and are true.
>
> : I apologize for any harsh responses that I may have left in this newsgroup
> : but I am outraged at the sceptism that people in the profession have to the
> : very diagnosis of DID. It is as if the these professionals by their denial
> : are in complicity with the initial extremely traumatic abuses.
>
> : Mixant
>
> : In article <6rki0k$v96$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> : "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > mix...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> : > >There is an excellent explanation for DID based on cognitive theory.
> : > >Find a textbook and read.
> : > >
> : > >Mixant
> : >
> : > You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence.
> : >
> : > What is the reference? I have never seen such an "excellent
> : > explanation," and even then, a mere explanation, without proof,
> : > would be of limited value.
> : >
> : >
>
> : -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> : http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
> --
> John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
> Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
> Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
> Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
>
> _
> _ / \ o
> / \ | | o o o
> | | | | _ o o o o
> | \_| | / \ o o o
> \__ | | | o o
> | | | | ______ ~~~~ _____
> | |__/ | / ___--\\ ~~~ __/_____\__
> | ___/ / \--\\ \\ \ ___ <__ x x __\
> | | / /\\ \\ )) \ ( " )
> | | -------(---->>(@)--(@)-------\----------< >-----------
> | | // | | //__________ / \ ____) (___ \\
> | | // __|_| ( --------- ) //// ______ /////\ \\
> // | ( \ ______ / <<<< <>-----<<<<< / \\
> // ( ) / / \` \__ \\
> //-------------------------------------------------------------\\
>
> Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels
> start closing in, the only cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and
> then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas ... with the
> music at top volume and at least a pint of ether.
> -- H.S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35ea9bc0...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 10:56:24 -0000 "Nancy Alvarado" <st...@binus.com>,
><35e2f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>
>With my metaphor I tried to wake up those posters who have programmed
>themselves to use verbal abuse.
>
Do you not see the irony of trying to stop verbal abuse in others by using
it yourself?
My comment was also intended for CG, who objects to me comparing newsgroup
participants to lab rats, but has no problem apparently with you comparing
them to computer programs (which are not even living organisms).
>Verbal abuse is very common human act. I do not like it. I see it
>harmful.
If no one likes it, why is it so common? What function does it serve?
Nancy
Nancy Alvarado
Olavi Noronen wrote in message <35e68a8...@news.kolumbus.fi>...
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:01:47 -0000 "Nancy Alvarado" <st...@binus.com>,
><35e2f...@206.170.198.12>,wrote:
>
>
>>Donna's point is that the question, by its phrasing, creates a demand to
be
>>someone else.
>
>Nancy,
>Supposedly she does not know much about psychotherapy.
>
>May I ask from you: Do you have experience on it?
Yes, but please focus on the questions asked, not my background.
>
>> It implies that someone can be other than themselves,
>
>Almost all people _are_ other than themselves, and we have to account
>this reality if we want to ask changes in human behavior and inherent
>experiences.
Not in the sense that they have different names and different personalities.
People have a large capacity for metaphor. If you are speaking
metaphorically, then we can be different people in different situations, but
that is not the same as literally being someone else. There is nothing that
suggests your question was asked metaphorically or philosophically.
Further, there is a difference between emphasizing or displaying different
aspects of a unified self in different situations, and being different
selves in different situations. The ability to change has nothing to do
with whether that change is being effected in a single self or multiple
selves.
>
>> that
>>there is a possibility for them to be other people, and that the therapist
>>expects them sometimes to be those other people.
>
>If we make the question to somebody: "Are you grazy?!" it does not
>mean that we expect him to be grazy.
Yes, it does. Especially if you are a therapist whose job it is to work
with "grazy" people. Add the word "today" and you communicate that you
expect them to be "grazy" one day and something else the next.
>
>> If this were not true, why
>>would the therapist ask such a question?
>
>As you saw I think that your theories are not true.
>
Then you do not know much about demand characteristics, suggestion, and
expectation. You need to do some more reading about psychology. There is a
literature on this.
>
>There are so many cases where a person is divided into two parts.
>
>In selfhatred there is a hater and a hated personality.
>
>When you "talk to yourself" there is a talker and a target.
To talk about these parts in metaphor while recognizing that they are
aspects of a single self is considerably different than talking about them
literally as distinct and separate parts. When I talk to myself, I know
that both the talker and the target are myself. If you talk about talker
and target as though they are literally two selves, a client may take you
literally and treat them as separate and distinct. It may seem strange that
a client could take such a statement literally, but we have been seeing
posters here taking things extremely literally that were intended to be
figurative language. Since you cannot predict how a listener will interpret
your remarks, there is no reason to use language that encourages further
dividing up the self with someone who is already confused in their sense of
self.
>
>You make 16000 thoughts during a day, and there are thousands of
>non-beneficial thoughts. You cannot stop them even for a minute, and
>you do not know where they come from - and you think that you are
>yourself.
>
>Your thoughts are controlling you. A controlled person is not
>*himself*.
I am not sure who you are referring to here when you say "you." You are not
describing me. My thoughts are not controlling me. Whether you believe
that consciousness is epiphenomenal (e.g., informs us of what we have
decided to do, after we have already decided nonconsciously) or executive,
my sense of myself is that I am in control of both my mind and my behavior.
Whether that sense is illusory or real, there is no benefit to believing
otherwise. Suggesting such doubts to clients strikes me as harmful to them.
If you are saying that this is what it feels like for some clients, then how
does it help them to suggest that they are actually several fragmented
people inhabiting the same body, rather than a single entity? If our sense
of self is constructed from attention to consistencies across time and
situation, how does it help that sense of self to emphasize and direct
attention toward the inconsistencies that occur in anyone's behavior?
Parents do not teach their children who they are by pointing out to them
that they are many different children from day to day.
>>There is a great deal of research showing that clients try to meet the
>>expectations of therapists and try to please them. If you give a
suggestion
>>to your client that you expect them to be different people on different
>>occasions, many will attempt to comply.
>
>This again makes me to think that you do not have much experience on
>therapy. If you have, please, correct me.
Why do you believe this? Because I disagree with something you have said?
Did you notice that I referred to research in my sentence?
>
>When I clearly see that a person is not him/herself there is no
>suggestion if I ask: "Who are you?"
>
Yes, there is. It says that you see them as someone different. Perhaps
they do not see themselves as someone different. They stop and wonder why
you see them as different when they do not see themselves so. If they give
you authority, they may questions their own observation about themself.
They may decide that you are interested in their differences and produce
more of them to interest and please you, to keep your attention.
>Many people use here mockery. It means that they are not themselves.
No. It means they are upset about something and do not wish to state their
objection in more direct terms. They are only someone else if you define
mockery as outside their scope of personality. Mockery is something
everyone is capable of -- part of everyone here. Your definitions of
people's selves are not the appropriate one -- the way they define
themselves is what counts. If you tell me I am not myself because I use
mockery, I will think you are "grazy".
>
>A person, who is in real connection to the self within, does not need
>mockery, blaming, labeling, withdrawal, indifference, arrogance or
>hostile attitudes.
Now you are defining a real connection and a self within. These are foreign
concepts that you are imposing on this discussion. They have no real
meaning to clients. I do not wish to exile these negatives to some
external, unreal, or self without. I find these negatives useful from time
to time, if unpleasant, and they are part of me, for better or worse. You
cannot take them away from me by your expectations. I find these attitudes
rising up in me as I feel you trying to define who I am and tell me what
parts of me I can keep and which I must abandon.
>
>>you should be aware that you are
>>influencing their behavior with the question you ask.
>
>Yes, it is my intentional purpose.
It is your purpose to influence people to regard themselves as several
people?
>
>When a person becomes aware of those two (or three) different parts of
>personality, different personalities, he has much better possibilities
>to become aware of their roots, and becoming aware of roots can lead
>to integration.
What is your evidence that regarding the self as fragmented results in later
integration? Here you are talking about "parts of personality." Earlier
you asked "who are you today?" We do not give the parts of our personality
separate names or consider them different "who's". If you use language that
respects this distinction, will not the client sooner recognize that these
are parts of a whole?
Another problem is that you seem to be talking about someone who enter
therapy with separate identities. What about someone who enters therapy
with confusion or with an unstable sense of self. Must they become separate
parts before they can integrate? Your approach suggests that you consider
that to be necessary. What effect would treating them as different people
on different days have on their confusion about self?
>
>When I feel selfpity there is absolutely not only one personality who
>feels selfpity.
Does it matter to you that others may not feel as you do? Is it your job to
create the same feelings about self in others that you yourself experience?
>
>In "shouldism", which is a wider religion than buddhism or hinduism
>together, one tells himself that "I should". There are at least two
>parts.
Here you are simply describing reflexivity. That does not imply separate
selves.
>
>When you are nervous there are at least two parts. You are running
>fast between them.
This is how you conceptualize it. Not everyone thinks of it this way.
>
>For example in shame; there is an inherent accuser and an inherent
>accused.
>- Who are you?
>+ An accuser.
>- What do you like about accused?
>+ I hate you. You are so weak. You spoil my opportunities. You are jus
>a weeping bastard!
So, you take a sense of comparison and external standard and personalize it
by referring to it as "you"? It is not necessary to talk about shame or
self-accusation in these terms. Again, you are using metaphor in a situation
where someone may take you literally.
Nancy