Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 11 September 2009

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal rights B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mirrored box

This is first description I've seen that includes a comment about mirrors. Do you have a source?

I will scan a photo of the isolation box used in the 3,6,12 month experiments.Rbogle 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

whoops. There was a small mirrored window for observations. I misread the sentence. Rbogle 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Early infanticidal childrearing

This experiment is shocking; but very impressive from the psychological perspective. I wonder if someone has related it to Lloyd deMause’s observations and theories of primitive, cannibalistic human tribes? (in New Guinea some tribe parents still eat their babies). See the flaming controversy between anthropologists and psychohistorians in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing. —Cesar Tort 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. Its interesting that you say its an "impressive" experiment, as the general consensus (from both the animal rights lobby and a significant number of scientists) was that it revealed very little at great cost. I'm not sure i agree that it is entirely without merit, personally, though i concur that the cost/benefit is questionable.

I guess the problem with relating it to human behaviour is the inherent anthropomorphism applied to the experiment interpretation. Monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans. How we define 'depressed', 'happy' or 'disturbed' animals is simply an interpretation of their behaviour. Some natural primate behaviour would appear disturbing if a human was to do it. Moreover, clearly in animal models - even those with complex social behaviours - hardwired innate behaviour is much more influential than learned or adaptive behaviour. A common tactic in animal behavioural experimentation is attempting to directly corrolate it to human situation. People do it all the time, of course, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Still, even with these caveats, i agree that the data does appear to reflect the observed effect of childhood abuse in humans and its manifestation in later life. What interests me is the variation: when "placed in isolation emerge badly damaged, and that some recover and some do not". This seems, to me, like very strong evidence for genetic variation playing a role. If you don't mind, may i ask (bearing in mind this is a controlled experiment i.e. the variables in terms of "abuse" and "recovery" are consistant) how would you interpret these differences in terms of the trauma model? I would have thought it unlikely they vary in terms of having an "enlightened witness". Thanks. Rockpocket 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, your assumption that humans and monkeys will behave differently when depressed is just an assumption, as is that monkey behavior is more hard-wired, if that's what you meant. And how we define "depressed" in humans is based on behavior too. If you visit your doctor and you're smiling, laughing, and rosy-cheeked, but tell him you're very depressed, he's not going to take you seriously.

Regarding the point that some monkeys recovered and some didn't, the sources for this experiment are frustratingly imprecise, so it's best not to extrapolate too much. I keep meaning to look for sources who speak about it in more detail, but I haven't gotten round to it. SlimVirgin 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi SV. You are correct, it is an assumption they will behave differently. As much of an assumption in assuming that they will behave the same when depressed. Ironically enough, i think we would each be making the exact opposite argument were we talking about testing drugs on the monkeys! Which says to me that there are key differences and there are key similarities - its all about interpreting them correctly. I agree that the criteria for "recovery" appears to be unclear and subjective, but then again, so is the whole experiment (subjective, i mean, in terms of attaching "meaning" to the behaviour of a species other than ourselves). I think the difference in attaching meaning to human conditions is that we all know what it feels like to be depressed or happy, and we can interpret that behaviour in others based on our own understanding of that. I have no idea what it is like to be a mouse or a monkey and thus interpreting their behaviour in terms of our personal understanding is clearly anthropomorphic. This isn't to dismiss the findings of the study, simply that direct corrolation with human psychiatric behaviour is misleading. Rockpocket 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. The significant numbers of scientists you mention were not psychohistorians. I doubt animals can have an “enlightened witness” (in Alice Miller’s verbal sense). The fact that some people got mad in Auschwitz while others did not shouldn’t be interpreted as genetic predisposition. The disturbed prisoners may have had a previous history of abuse at home that made them more vulnerable. At least I know one Auschwitz survivor, Yakoff Skurnik, who published a book under a pseudonym. All of his family was killed in the Nazi camp but he had been treated so well during his childhood that he didn’t get mad there . My guess is that if the monkeys who did it had stayed a little longer in the pit of despair they’d have gotten mad too. All of us have a breaking point, including animals. If I remember correctly, some psychohistorians have mentioned this monkey experiment, but I have to check my references again. It is not anthropomorphism to note that the mother monkey chewed her baby’s hands and feet and to compare this with the savages in New Guinea who eat their babies. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RP, that's an old fallacy, the supposed inappropriateness of being anthropomorphic. We have no reason to suppose that, when a monkey looks depressed, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being looks depressed. Indeed, that's why we use them in psychology experiments. It's adding insult to injury to abuse them in order to gain information about ourselves, but then to say: "We can't assume you're anything like us at all." SlimVirgin 22:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And the fact that the experiment impressed me doesn’t mean I approve animal experimentation: I abhor it. Incidentally the Yakoff Skurnik book I mentioned has as a subtitle “A Mengele experiment”. (BTW, what means “RP”?) —Cesar Tort 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RP is Rockpocket. :-) SlimVirgin 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats why it is, in my opinion, a poor experiment in terms of informing human behaviour. What we learn about "ourselves" from this is debatable. I'm afraid i strongly disagree regarding anthropomorphism, SV. I hate to "pull rank" (it always smacks of intellectual oneupmanship, however in this case it necesary to explain my example) but i'm a behavioural geneticist by profession.

Let me give you the same example i gave Cesar the other day. I have a mouse that lacks a particular gene. This causes males to attempt to mate with other males instead of fighting with them . The obvious anthropomorphic interpretation of this is that these mice are homo- or, more accurately, bisexual. Using your rationale, we have would have no reason to suppose that, when a mouse acts homosexual, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being acts homosexual. Your conclusion, therefore, would be that we had found a genetic basis for sexuality.

This is the assumption most people initially make. If it were true, i would be rich, (in)famous and have my own Misplaced Pages article. I don't. And thats because it is an entirely incorrect assumption and informs nothing about sexual attraction in the human sense. For most animals, mating, fighting (and probably suckling) is encoded in a hard-wired innate manner, through a neural mechanism that appears to be entirely lacking in humans. This isn't an assumption, it has been shown genetically, anatomically and developmentally, that this system is not present in humans. Therefore, this experiment informs nothing about human behaviour, except as an excellent paradigm for neural coding (which was why it was published in Science).

Its true that, if you are going to anthropomorphise, primates are your safest bet. Nevertheless, even primate behaviour has to be taken in context of natural behaviour and 'depression' and 'happiness' are not defined animal characteristics, just as homo- or bi-sexuality concepts aren't either (with the possible exception of bonobos). Assuming that an animal is "depressed" because it "looks" it, is no different from assuming my mice are "homosexual" because they look it. In other words,it is the first step towards a very, very shaky conclusion. Which takes me back to my original point, this experiment tells you about simian behaviour, which is a model for human behaviour with all the caveats that must entail. My concerns about these experiments are mainly on cost/benefit grounds, but humanistic over-interpretation comes a close second. For me the difference between the monkeys is interesting (albeit under-reported), because this is the best controlled data. Cesar suggests it is a threshold issue (if some were kept in the pit longer, they would have stayed "mad" instead of "recovering"). So my next, obvious, question is: what does your model propose is responsible for the different "madness thresholds" in the monkeys (bearing in mind every other environmental parameter is controlled)? Rockpocket 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading this reply, i realise it sounds like i'm saying monkeys should not be called depressed or happy. That is not what i mean. Clearly within the context of natural monkey behaviour (grooming, playing etc) a monkey can be more or less socially interactive. Defining this as "depression" or "happiness" is not incorrect as a term for relative behaviour compared to other intraspecifics. But it is relative, not absolute. It does not automatically follow that this "depression" is biologically or emotionally equivalent to human "depression" as we understand it. Suggesting that would be behavioural anthropomorphism and that is what i was warning against. The difference between the two are subtle, but important. And thats not to say that the experiments can't inform about human "depression", just that direct behavioural comparisons are presumptive. This paper for example, does make a correlation, but note it is not using the specific "depressive" behaviours themselves directly as the comparative parameter, but a putative biomarker of depression: 5-HT(1A) receptor binding potential. Admittedly Harlow didn't have the technology to do that, and it is not fair to criticise him for lacking what was technically impossible at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't interpret his data with appropriate caution. Sorry about the monologue, but hopefully i've made myself clearer now. Rockpocket 06:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "love" in Background

I believe that the word "love" should be changed to a word with less religious and emotional connotations, such as "parental care". 66.253.36.140 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious connotation??--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "psychosis"

I think that "psychosis" is a really loaded word to use in the article, because it implies, at least to my non-psychiatric mind, too much knowledge of the workings of a monkey's mind. According to Misplaced Pages, "Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired", and can we really say that about a non-human creature? If, OTOH, it is a term generally used by experts when describing this study, then I withdraw the objection. --JdwNYC 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the word the sources use, and there's no reason to suppose it's difficult to see when a monkey's thought processes and perception are severely impaired; at least, no harder than to see when a human being's are. SlimVirgin 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

In my opinion, this article has an excessive amount of quotes, and I feel that they are being used to dodge the NPOV rules. arguably the most grave offender is the conclusion, ending the article with a quote, particularly such a POV one, is never good Encyclopaedic manner. I'm adding the NPOV template for now, hopefully we can get a good NPOV rework without needing a major rewrite. Riffraffselbow 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going about this incorrectly, please feel free to revert the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riffraffselbow (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Disturbing

I found this quite disturbing. Should/Can it have a warning on it? User:CaptinJohn 09 Feb 2007

Misplaced Pages is not censored and if you look around, we have quite a lot of disturbing content with no warning labels. About the farthest we go is to "spoiler" warnings when an article might spoil a novel/movie/etc. for you.

Atlant 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also find it merely disturbing. The prolonged abuse and torture of monkey babies can hardly be explained as scientific research. About warning, I think one would be suitable. But rather than that, some backround of people who were in charge of this, and the details of this 'research' would contribute to the content of the article. Unfortunately, I didn't find any resources I could use.

Jesus christ, that's absolutely awful. It makes me want to vomit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.228.230 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am actually glad wikipedia has articles about everything, but I think some things should have warnings. Like articles about sexual organs have pictures, that a school student can access. I think that things like that should have a warning too, when I was in school, porn was blocked but wikipedia articles on sexual organs were not. Neither were the pictures, so basically thanks to wikipedia I always liked to look at pussy at school. This one though, is worse than any of those little things like that. I think that whoever thought up the pit of despair experiment should be beaten to death. It makes me sick and reminds me just how much I hate this world. School Sick 801 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that its upsetting, there is scientific merit in almost anything. Its potentially arguable that the most horrific of subjects could possibly net the most useful results. What if some type of research like this or something similar were to bring about information which describes the situations that lead to rape? And what if that data helped to eliminate it, or severely reduce its occurance? Wouldn't tangible results make the unfortunate things which led to them worth it at some point? The cliche comment of the ends justifying the means aside, don't they? JN322 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Not in this case. There were no hope for valuable information. There's important and valuable science that are done with animal testing that I support, but this is just animal cruelty... your arguments could be used for the testing in Nazi-Germany on human subjects. Sometimes you have to draw a line.--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally when someone immediately compares something they're not in agreement with to nazisim, I assume they do so because they cannot come up with any other valid argument. Making it comparable to "nuh-uh". JN322 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting experiment lengths

The opening paragraph states "Harlow placed baby monkeys in the chamber alone for up to six weeks", but the caption of the second photograph states "...after six months of total isolation". The citations are merely names of individuals, and I cannot establish the correct time period.

All references to experiment length should be deleted unless this can be corrected. 84.9.165.236 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They are different chambers. He left baby monkeys alone in various chambers for up to two years. The source indicate that the longest he left them in the Pit of Despair was six weeks. But you're right -- it's confusing and we need to clarify it. SlimVirgin 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One Sided

All the information seems to come out of Singer's Animal Liberation. No attempt is made to give the other side - the benefits of the research, Harlow's reasoning for the research, the problem of psychosis and depression in children and the affect on future child rearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the line "the irony of this statement apparently lost on him." This statement is not neutral, and was removed to follow Misplaced Pages's NPOV guidelines.

It is EXTREMELY important to maintain a neutral Point of View on Misplaced Pages. Please remember that this is SCHOLARLY project, and uncited or NPOV statements will NOT be tolerated. If you cannot follow the NPOV guidelines, please leave Misplaced Pages. 72.23.80.194 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Title: POV concerns

I have placed a POV tag on the page. I am doing this because of the article title. According to the body of the page, "pit of despair" is one of several (disturbing) terms "used" by the creator of the apparatus, but is not the official name. It is unclear how extensively this name was used, and therefore the selection of this particular page title, as opposed to some other title, raises questions of neutrality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing some more reading on this issue, and am continuing to do so. At this point, I see some value in keeping the page title as it is, but clarifying the text of the lead to make clearer what the origin of the term is. Also, I note that this page contrasts in tone to that on Harry Harlow. The bio page is appropriately balanced between the good and the bad, whereas the page here is more prosecutorial than encyclopedic, and so it would be helpful to provide more balance in the coverage of the reactions, good and bad, to Harlow's work. As I find sources for all of this, I will add it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article could be move to vertical chamber apparatus, given it is the correct technical term for it. I am not familiar enough with the issue to know whether the "Pit of Despair" is a colloquial term widely adopted by Harlow himself or whether its popularity only comes from the AR lobby. If it is the former, its probably better to leave it as is. If it is the latter, then moving could be a better option. It might be worth listing at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and having a discussion. Or you could be bold and wait for a reversion. Rockpocket 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I think. It's a bit of both, because it was Harlow himself who used the term, but it clearly has been seized upon used subsequently as AR propaganda. At this point, I'm in favor of keeping the title as is, based upon its use by both "sides" of the debate, and upon its notoriety as a symbol of the debate. (The other title is already a redirect to here.) I'm still planning on doing a significant expansion of the page, and I'm sorry that I've let so much time pass without getting around to it. (Right now, it's second-to-next on my to-do list, after Causes of schizophrenia, so hopefully I'll get to it soon.) There are actually quite a few reliably-sourced facts that can be added for POV balance, including the influence of this research on extending visiting hours for (human) pediatric patients in hospitals. So, I'm going to try to make this into a more balanced page, and I think it has a lot of potential to be quite interesting. Thanks for your reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Harlow who called it that. It hasn't been "seized upon" by anyone. That was the name he gave it. SlimVirgin 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Its more a question of whether it is the name, or a name. That is not clear, reading the text. Rockpocket 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was the name Harlow gave it. It's the name that everyone knows it by. He chose it because it was so descriptive. See e.g. Blum, Love at Goon Park, p. 219. SlimVirgin 00:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He clearly also gave it the name "vertical chamber apparatus" (as described in Blum, Love at Goon Park, p. 218 and as can be seen from all his scholarly publications). See also vs . As is often the case, it comes down to perspective. If sources are criticizing Harlow's methodology (or are discussing criticism of his methodology), then "Pit of Despair" is invariably used, if it is being discussed from a scientific perspective, where the results of the experiments are the focus of the source, then "vertical chamber apparatus" is typically used. Since a good article should cover both of these aspects, its difficult to see where that leaves us in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. Rockpocket 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He used the name "pit of despair" and it was his experiment, and this is the name it's now widely known by. I've clarified in the lead that it also had a technical name.

What does need to be checked is the length of time the monkeys were left in it. The sources are inconsistent. I've read six weeks, six months, one year, and two years. Part of the problem is that he conducted different experiments with different devices, different times, and subjects removed from their mothers at various points, but then he called them all "the isolates," and this has confused the sources. Someone needs to go back and find the primary sources, and hope that they're not equally confusing. I've gone with six weeks for now, as this is the most common time given for the pit of despair, but only just. SlimVirgin 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think anyone is questioning that he used that name, only whether that is the primary or most common name he used. There appears to inconsistency between sources. For example, he wrote a 1971 review about all his experiments and he describes the apparatus he created (in his own words) as being termed the "vertical chamber"... There is no mention of "pit of despair". The name that it is "widely known by" depends, I suppose, on what company one keeps. Rockpocket 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The company we keep as Wikipedians is that of reliable sources. Regarding times, I've just read that he kept some in there for up to 15 years, which I can only hope and assume is wrong. Every time I try to pin this down, I find a wider variation. SlimVirgin 01:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then one would think the most reliable source for what Harlow preferred to call his apparatus would by Harlow's own words, no? Either way, I'm not advocating we change the name, simply that it be acknowledged that there is ambiguity and that "Pit of Despair" is one of a number of terms he used. As for the time he kept them in there, I'll look at his publications and see what they say. Rockpocket 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You quote an article in a science journal with Suomi as a co-author. Suomi was one of the people who tried to persuade Harlow not to call it "pit of despair," and that's anyway not the kind of title they would use in a science paper. Remember that a key component of animal research is never to be descriptive about what you're doing. Harlow was, at least, very honest about it, when allowed to be. SlimVirgin 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats an telling analysis, but it is analysis. Just because you distrust scientific writing does not mean we should dismiss it as a reliable source. Ironically enough, I would say that a "vertical chamber" is much more descriptive of the apparatus than a "pit of despair" (The former better describes the apparatus, the latter describes the experimental outcome), but that is my analysis. Rockpocket 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the apparatus, but about the experiment. Not sure what you mean by "telling," and I didn't say I don't trust scientific writing. I said that animal researchers tend to use words that aren't expressive of what they're actually doing. We've had this conversation several times before as a result of that. I recall you even objected to "Britches" having a name, until you found out it was the researchers who had named him, as though they are legitimate namers, but no one else is. This is why I argue that we stick to reliable sources, all of them, and we use the words they use. Then discussions like this one can mostly be avoided. SlimVirgin 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recollection is incorrect. For the record, my opinion on the issue of Britches name: "I don't really see a major problem with this article. We could argue about what it is called but ultimately Britches would get redirected there, so I think we could use our time more productively." Rockpocket 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I got you mixed up with Animalresearcher. I hope you'll take the point nevertheless, namely that what matters is which name catches on and is widely used, not who originally did the naming. Researchers don't own these experiments or their descriptions or vocabulary. I have the same argument on Israel-Palestine pages. Pro-Israel editors want to call the expulsion of Palestinians from the land that became Israel by their operational names. For example, they would prefer "Operation Danny," to Exodus from Lydda, or the even more expressive "Lydda Death March." But the people who carried out that event can't extend their ownership of it into how it is named and viewed by history. My argument here is the same. The researchers might want to call something "Experiment X," so that it doesn't signal its content, but if the rest of the world ends up calling it "the absolutely terrifying dungeon experiment," that becomes its "name." We are helped here by the fact that the name used by the original researcher and the name that caught on are the same, which makes it even odder than anyone would suggest changing it. SlimVirgin 05:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that (and, as I indicated at Britches and here, I am not adverse to using commonly used names in these situations). However, "commonly used name" does not always equal "non-technical name". The same argument can be made the other way: just because a small number of animal rights activists choose an emotive term to promote their preferred view of something does not mean that it automatically trumps a name widely used across the scientific community, just because it is non-technical. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, but dispute the suggestion that one is inherently better than the other for our purposes. We should judge each on a case-by-case basis, rather than dismiss scientists because they don't describe it emotively enough (in your opinion).

That's exactly what I said. And it's not that others choose an emotive term. It's that animal researchers choose terms that don't fully describe what they're doing. SlimVirgin 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, the reason I said your analysis was "telling" was because you appeared to suggest the reason scientists prefer terms like "vertical chamber" to "pit of despair" is because they are trying to hide something ("so that it doesn't signal its content"). That is telling because it shows how one can find malfeasance anywhere when one sets out to look for it. In fact the real reason is much more mundane. Scientific method is based upon the principle of stating hypotheses and then challenging them without bias. The hypothesis Harlow had was that isolation would influence emotional states leading to dysfunctional behaviour. If he called his apparatus a "pit of despair" in his publications he would be preempting the results of his experiments (i.e it would cause despair), which is a form of experimental bias that fails the scientific methods and would ring alarm bells in peer review. So, scientists instead use neutral terms to describe their techniques (note a "vertical chamber apparatus" is an appropriate name irrespective of the effect it would have on a monkey, the "pit of despair" is not). Attributing motive to scientists based on AR activist rhetoric does a disservice to neutrality. Rockpocket 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with AR. (It doesn't do to see AR everywhere as a motive, as though anyone not sharing your world view must be an AR activist.) It was Harlow's colleagues who tried to persuade him not to use that term. It was the same with "rape rack," another term he insisted on using. They did not like the names to be so explicit, even in casual use where it didn't really matter. Regarding the pit of despair (he first wanted to call it the "dungeon of despair," which they felt was even worse), Blum writes: "His colleagues and friends tried to persuade him to stay with the technical description. They warned him that it would be politically easier to use less inflammatory, less visual—perhaps less candid—descriptions." SlimVirgin 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the time in the chambers. In 1965 he published an experiment using his an "isolation chamber" (which looks like File:Harlow-Isolationchamber.gif); he put monkeys in there from a few hours after birth until 3, 6, or 12 months of age. These appear to be the longest isolations, but they were not to break social bonds "in order to create the symptoms of depression". Those bond breaking experiments appear to be shorter. For example, he published a 1971 study where he put them in the vertical apparatus for 30 days, a 1972 study for 10 weeks, a 1974 study for 4 weeks. I can't find any paper that uses that apparatus longer than that. Rockpocket 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have one saying ten weeks, could you give me the citation, please? I can then add it to the article. SlimVirgin 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It is Vertical-Chamber Confinement of Juvenile-Age Rhesus Monkeys, PMID 4621802. Rockpocket 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, that was refreshing. My thanks to Rockpocket for taking the brunt of that, instead of me. Seems a bit odd, given that there really does not seem to be much disagreement about keeping the title of the page as it is. However, let's refrain from this business of "minor" edits removing POV tags before the edits (that I described above) have taken place and been agreed to. The page is still very POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind an occasional forthright discussion with SV. It seems we are more or less in agreement on the substantive issue, so there is no harm done. From my perspective as a reader, the article appears to lack what these sets of experiments contributed to the scientific literature. We are told, rather simplistically, by Blum they are "common sense results" - but given that Harlow's work appears to be cited in a number of psychology textbooks, I'm guessing there is a little more to it than that. Rockpocket 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly correct about that. As I started to say above, there is, in fact, a great deal of reliably-sourced information about some very good things that have come out of this (arguably) bad research. Right now, the page is badly POV, because it reads like a prosecutor's brief against Harlow. It will take me some time, but I am working on adding sourced material that presents a more balanced and nuanced picture: both an animal welfare movement and also some very compassionate insights into human health care that have risen out of this "pit." Please understand, I have no intention of making the page into an apology! The ethical failings need to remain covered, but a page that covers the good and the bad in an NPOV way has the potential to be very interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean apologia, not apology, and an apologia is in part what we do need, in the sense of explanation, rather than excuse. I think you'll be hard pressed to find it though, given that the research's conclusions were self-evident, and indeed were what the experiment was premised on in the first place. I would like to see a scientist who says, "We now believe X because of this experiment and we didn't believe it beforehand." SlimVirgin 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When?

The article says the 70s (when in the 1970s), but the "monkey love" link under Further Reading says 1959! Hugo999 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag

Tryptofish, you do nothing but cause problems around animal rights or animal testing articles. Please edit constructively. If you have material you can add to this, it would be most welcome, but you can't add a POV tag in lieu of making those edits, and then not make them. The tag has been there for months. Please either identify what you feel needs to be fixed, and say what it is on talk and get consensus to add it, or leave the tag off. SlimVirgin 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this

I'm starting a new section for this point, so it's not contaminated by previous issues. One of my hopes for an article like this is that, if properly written, it could be extremely interesting. It touches on a range of important issues: man's arrogance, the limitless nature of curiosity for its own sake, the willingness of students to go along with anything a more senior academic is doing, why no one tried to stop it (or perhaps they did). Then the issues being researched: the importance of relationships, what if anything was learned from the experiments, why it needed to be learned at that time (i.e. the ideological backdrop regarding child-raising), and what practical changes that knowledge brought. Issues about Harlow: his own depression and personality. Issues about the ethics of experimentation in general: should we use knowledge gleaned from unethical work?

In all the time I've been editing Misplaced Pages, I've rarely seen animal researchers—who have easy access to all the sources—write in a critical and interesting way about what they do. All I've seen is defending it, trying to remove criticism. Similarly, I've rarely seen people opposed to animal research willing to admit that something might be learned even from experiments regarded as awful.

As Tryptofish says above, here we have the potential to write a truly interesting article, but that can only be done if everyone is willing to be honest and open. Look, just as one example—and maybe this is unfair, but it's something I noticed—Rockpocket, when you found the source saying monkeys were in there for 10 weeks, not six, why didn't you fix the lead? I'm pretty sure if the lead had said ten, and you'd found it was only six, you'd have fixed it. When I found it was six weeks (as I thought) and not a year, I changed it. So I just wonder why you didn't do the same.

Similarly, when you found the ages of the monkeys used (3 months to 3 years), why did you just add "older"? Seems to me that, if you'd discovered only adult monkeys were used, you'd have added the ages. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I apologize, but what I perceive is an unwillingness (or inability) to approach this in a disinterested way, an unwillingness to add the good and the bad equally. I may be guilty of the same. It's easy to see it in others, hard to see it in ourselves.

So anyway, the bottom line is a plea that, if we're going to work on this, both sides agree to try to produce as good an article as the sources will allow, including adding material that we personally dislike. SlimVirgin 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. I would have preferred you asked why first, rather then assuming bad faith and offering your own (incorrect) interpretation of my motivation. I don't really see why I need to justify myself, but since I stand accused here is my explanation:

The primary reason I didn't add that source for 10 weeks myself is because you explicitly asked for it and therefore I assumed you planned to do something with it. I don't appreciate being criticized for not doing enough with a source I only looked for on your request. Secondly, it was only my perfunctory search that revealed a source for 10 weeks, that does not in anyway mean 10 weeks was the most he kept them in there for, we need a secondary source to put boundary limits such as "for up to ten weeks".

Regarding why I used "older": I have no idea if he put monkeys older than 3 years or younger than three months in the apparatus. I do know that he said the purpose of the apparatus was to put socialized animals in there, older than the newborns he used for the isolation chamber. Therefore it is better to use a less specific term such as "older" that we know to be accurate then a specific term ("between three months and three years old") that could well be inaccurate. Detail is good, but only if it is correct detail. Again, if we want to limit the age with specific numbers, we need a secondary source rather than using syntheses of primary sources.

I am willing to spend some time searching out his papers, reading them in their entirety and to try to get to the bottom of the length of his experiments. I don't doubt that your motivation, SV, is to make this a balanced article. It would make this a much more enjoyable editing experience if you afforded the rest of us the same good faith rather than look for evidence of bias in every edit (or - bizarrely - even in the lack of an edit). Rockpocket 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that I decided to take a little time and think about it, before replying here. Not surprisingly, I'm very sympathetic to the points Rockpocket just made. But perhaps more notably, I want to pick up on what SlimVirgin said, aside from the comments directed at Rockpocket, and say that I see a lot to agree with. Where you said "It's easy to see it in others, hard to see it in ourselves," you were, of course, correct, and onto something key here. I appreciate that you said it, as I suspect that it really came from the heart, and I see it as very helpful as an explanation (apologia!). Where you commented that you think you never see editors who have research backgrounds providing POV balance supporting AR, please consider that, in part, we perceive many of these pages as having a pro-AR and anti-research POV, and we perceive our edits as restoring NPOV. Consequently, it's natural that our edits appear NPOV to us and POV to others, just as your edits appear NPOV to you and POV to others. But, in part, the accusation is also not true. I, like Rockpocket, should not really have to defend myself, but consider this, where I added pro-AR material to a page. And I do quite a bit of RVV, including this, which resulted in this at my talk from that same person–who obviously has a different take on POV than either of us. Those are just a few diffs that I can remember (because I really don't have a lot of time), but my point is to, please, AGF, and discuss content, not editors.

With that in mind, I think your first paragraph actually indicates a lot of shared interests with what I suggested higher up in this talk. Let me please suggest the following. Both Rockpocket and I seem to feel that the POV template still belongs on the page, and that my edits to the lead, that you reverted along with the template, are appropriate. I suggest we restore all of that, and that we be patient while addressing the issues I clearly described above in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec; to RP) Regarding the 10 week source, my question is why I had to ask for it. I do feel that, if you'd discovered a source that made the time less than what was already in the lead, you'd have changed it immediately. I'm basing this on the way I've seen you edit in the past.

I suppose what I feel I'm seeing here is an entirely uninformed response. You and Tryptofish work in this field. You both started editing this article without being asked to, so clearly you must be interested. But no reading seems to have been done. T is claiming POV. How can she know it's POV if she's not read anything? If you don't have time to read the sources, please email them to me, and I'll be happy to read them so you don't have to.

You might also want to look at your own posts and Tryptofish's before mentioning AGF. T adds a POV tag, then announces the page needs edits she has no time to make, but that the tag must stay in place anyway. Then there are references to the "company one keeps," AR "propaganda," and "telling analysis," and this isn't the first page that has seen these barbs. If others were to respond in kind every single time, where would we be?

The one thing we do agree on is that we would all have a more enjoyable editing experience if we just stuck to the sources, and ran with them, no matter whether we agree with them or not. That's what I'd like to do. SlimVirgin 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct I am uninformed, I said as much myself when I entered this discussion. Until you asked ("Someone needs to go back and find the primary sources") I had never read any of Harlow's work. My "interest" in the article came primarily from the fact that I added the Wiki-project banner, so it is on my watch list, and I saw Tryptofish's comment about POV and had a look myself. As you requested, I looked at a few of his papers to see how long he put the animals in the apparatus for, I documented what I found (as a favor to you) and now I'm being criticized because, firstly, I didn't take those (incomplete) sources and rewrite a section based on them and now, again, because I dare to edit an article in which I am not an expert on the subject? Please. Finally, if my goal was to sanitize this article, why on earth would I even provide the 10 week citation for you? Your claims are ludicrous (and those so-called "barbs" are nothing of the sort, its patently obvious that if one in is the company of AR activists, it will be more widely known as the pit of despair and if one is in the company of scientists, its will be more widely known as the vertical chamber apparatus. How that is a "barb" at you God only knows.)

However the more reading I do to inform myself, the more of a POV mess this article seems to be. As its written, its mixes up lots of different experiments picking bits and pieces of each. Its also very reliant on a single source for most of the content, which is always a concern. The purpose appears to be to show how horrible the experiments were, without actually describing them with any accuracy. For example:

• If one reads Stephen Suomi's actual thesis, it states that the original purpose of the vertical chamber was to put newborn in there for 45 days (6.5 weeks) immediately after birth, but they couldn't maintain newborns in the chamber, so instead they isolated them for 45 days, then placed them in the chamber for 45 days. 45 days is less than three months which rather puts paid to "Most of the monkeys placed inside it were at least three months old and had already bonded with others." Wrong in both cases.
• His thesis documents many other experiments in the apparatus, many of which involves "four-day periods... during which they were confined to vertical chambers", no mention of these experiments, oddly, could that be because they don't sound horrific enough?
• Our article says Suomi concludes he "could find no monkey who had any defense against it", that "Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged" and "a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression." I can find no mention of those conclusions, and that language is entirely at odds with how he actually concludes his research: " I have demonstrated that depressive behavior of a stable and lasting form can be induced reliably in young monkey subjects." I would suggest we don't attribute the conclusions of others to Prof. Suomi, unless someone can show where he actually said those things.
• Finally, the reaction section is hopelessly one-sided (what is that about only adding material that favors one's point of view?) A quick good search finds Harlow's work described in terms such as "ingenious" and also demonstrates how he challenged previously held beliefs about attachment (which rather invalidates that assumption that it the results were self-evident). Would you like those to be added, or is my lack of expertise a barrier to this? Rockpocket 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Animal rights articles
• Mid-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles