Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 18 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dissociative identity disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Psychology B‑class High‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine 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. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives
Start to December, 2004 January-December, 2005 January-February, 2006 February-December, 2006 January-October, 2007 November, 2007 – August, 2008 September, 2008-January, 2012 January, 2012 - present /Multiple personality controversy

Clean list of sources

Please use this section to list any sources not already in the page. Please do not use it to discuss them. Please do not add signatures or datestamps as this will cause them to be archived.

Iatrogenic model has been renamed "sociocognitive", google scholar search

• Boysen, 2011, The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research
• Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
• Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
• Brand et al. 2011, A survey of practices and recommended treatment interventions among expert therapists...

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1037/a0026487, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1037/a0026487 instead.

• Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.
• Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
• Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
• - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
• NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
• Ross, 2009, Errors of logic and scholarship concerning dissociative identity disorder (addresses Piper and Mersky)
• Kluft, 2007, The older female patient with a complex chronic dissociative disorder.
• Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.
• Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X
• Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (chapter 5)
• Lilienfeld, 2011, Distinguishing Scientific From Pseudoscientific Psychotherapies (possibly useful)
• MacDonald, 2008, Dissociative disorders unclear? Think ‘rainbows from pain blows’
• Kring, 2009, Abnormal psychology
• Lynn et al. 2010, Dissociation and dissociative identity disorder: Treatment guidelines and cautions
• 2008 Singh, A study in dualism: The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
• 2001 Sutker, Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology
• 2006 Rieber, The bifurcation of the self
• 2011 Tavris, Multiple Personality Deception
• Bravman, 2010, Controversy: Dissociative Identity Disorder
• 1997, Lewis et al. Objective documentation of child abuse and dissociation in 12 murderers with dissociative identity disorder
• Merckelbach

Paranoia

I can't see a reason to remove "paranoia" from the list of signs and symptoms. There's a source, is it misrepresented? A brief search on google found several other more recent sources also citing paranoia as something expressed by patients with DID, suggesting it's still a concern. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that a discussion about this is occurring at User talk:Tylas#Paranoia, but I will attempt to move it here so more editors can comment. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me some GOOD research that paranoia is a symptom of DID - not fringe stuff. Nowhere have I ever seen paranoia listed as a symptom of DID - and I do read the research of experts and avoid fringe ideas. It is certainly not a common or widely accepted symptom of DID. Are you again going to stop each and EVERY change I try and make to the DID article? It's suppose to be a group work. Not a WLU (and friends that support him) article. Why do I threaten you so much! ~ty (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you define "good" research? Becuase it sounds like by "good" you mean "research I already agree with". WP:FRINGE specifies nonmainstream sources like self-published books. Psychiatry, where Ellason, Ross & Fuchs published their article, does not seem to be such a journal. My threshold for sources is whether they are reliable.

Articles on wikipedia are written in accordance with the policies and guidelines. Editors who ignore these policies and guidelines, particularly to push specific points of view, often get blocked. The P&G exist to ensure a higher quality of article that represents all relevant aspects of a topic, not just the ones certain editors like. The P&G are the rules to ensure editors can agree that even if they dislike a specific aspect of a topic, there is a way to determine if it should be included and how. For instance, I have undone your change to the DSM-V section because the rationale tab of the APA page which specifies both conversion and somatoform disorders. I'm not targetting your edits any more than I am any other editor - but your edits to date tend to have rather egregious flaws. You don't threaten me, you're an inexperienced editor who has a tendency to edit in accordance to your personal beliefs rather than what reliable sources say. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't start preaching that crap to me again! I saw how Misplaced Pages works! You get your buddies all together and force your agenda! I have no doubt that you will try and get me blocked. It fits your pattern. If you can't win, go to your friends. Good research is mainstream! Not that by a few people that try to discredit something. I don't threaten you as a wikipedia editor, no - but I do as someone that really has DID and knows what you are and you can't handle that. Check the link to the updated DSM 5 criteria. You will see that my edit is NOT what you claim. It is a correct edit. He he... Paranoia is a great title for this section. ~ty (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept that Psychiatry is not a fringe source? Do you accept that it is in fact a reliable source? Rather than again resorting to personal attacks and assuming bad faith, why not address my substantive points? It means that sometimes the page will contain information that you personally disagree with - but it also ensures that well-sourced information you agree with will remain. Note that I have not contacted any other editors, thus arguing against me trying to "gang up on you with my buddies". All I'm trying to do is show why I am editing the way I am, and asking you to adhere to the same sets of rules and guidelines. Hardly unreasonable. I don't give a shit whether or not you have DID, I'm just asking you to edit in accordance with wikipedia's rules. That is hardly unreasonable. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC

There is NO assuming here! I have already been your victim! Both edits I made are correct. It does not matter what I agree with. I might have my own ideas of how the DSM 5 should be, but I posted what IS! Also Paranoia is not an acceptable symptom of DID. You have it confused with Schizophrenia. I have presented evidence. You are just sticking to your same old arguments. No one is right but WLU.~ty (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What evidence have you presented? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not contacted them YET! But you did already threaten to take me to the Admin board where many of them hang out.~ty (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between content and behaviour issues. I asked you to remove a rather egregious personal attack from your talk page; if you don't, I will raise this behavioural issue at ANI. The content discussion is happening now, and like most of my efforts to date it consists of an attempt to get you to read and understand our content policies. I see no need to bring the content issues up at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was already removed before you posted this threat to me. Yes, I do know the difference between behavior and content issues. That has been on my page for a very long time and you did not care until I came back to edit. ~ty (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ty, I personally wrote like 90% of that section now, and I assure you that reference is correct. Also, in my personal experience (which doesn't mean jack shit on wikipedia), I have experienced paranoia as a symptom of my DD. Paranoia doesn't have to be a psychotic symptom. Have you never thought someone was talking to you behind your back, or unreasonably feared that a past abuser would somehow come back from the dead (or whatever)? That is paranoia. It should be on the list unless you can prove that the citing is incorrect. Feel free to do that. I do not have my articles anymore unfortunately - my hard drive crashed and somehow my backup virtual data account got messed up. Also I am mostly computerless for the next few weeks so I won't be making my own edits until at least then. I am going to be doing research on DID and other dissociative disorders to write some articles with some help, so I'll be doing it anyway and might as well help wikipedia. Gotten a bit of wikipedia fever going on. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Sweetie. I trust you do make it a good article. Take a deeper look at the paranoia thing. That is not usually considered to be a symptom, instead it helps distinguish Schizophrenia from DID. Also the proposed DSM 5 is updated as per the edit I did. Both were correct edits. Keep up the good work. I will spend my time elsewhere if you have this under control and will check back time to time.~ty (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into the citation used, and it is a primary source that is quite old. I will try to find a secondary source that discusses the issue, but as is I do not consider it a great source to include and would prefer to either demote or remove paranoia from the list. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After looking for a while, I could not find a recent, secondary source that identified paranoia as a symptom of DID. Normally if something like this is a well-recognized symptom, it would be quite easy to verify with reference to MEDRS. Having this much trouble suggests that these findings were not replicated beyond this one group, or perhaps there some other reason that paranoia is not considered a symptom (several sources alluded to DID and borderline personality disorder being related, with paranoia being a symptom associated with the latter rather than the former, perhaps that is it). I will be removing paranoia from the list of symptoms, please discuss before replacing. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed several bits of text from the signs and symptoms section . The biggest thing is the removal of Rodewall, 2011 (PMID 21278542). This is a primary source, which examined a sample of around 100. Despite being recent, it's quite new (and most importantly - primary). In most cases it was redundant to other citations, in one it wasn't and I removed that text. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I guess this shows my inexperience in understanding primary/secondary sources. Thanks for fixing it. I'll have my new computer soon and want to start reading up more. Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's a learning process. Primary/secondary It's an important distinction, it helps avoid cherry-picking sources to support some points and ignore others. Generally if a publication that identifies an experimental group, it's probably not a good idea to use it. There are exceptions, but they are pretty rare. It is possible to use the introduction/literature review as a source in these sorts of articles if you're careful - but generally for things that are widely accepted or already known, in which case there's probably a secondary source somewhere anyway.

If you don't already do so, I suggest searching on pubmed before google scholar - it has an option to restrict outputs to only review and meta-analytic articles, which is very helpful (once you've got search results, the option is in the left-hand column). From there, google scholar may be useful in turning up full-text versions. Google books are usually considered secondary sources as well, but the quality and reliability are much more of a crapshoot. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unable to make simple edits

New Editors to a page should have the right to make GOOD edits.

I made 2 small changes and you - WLU started a war! I do not want to spend my days on this talk page again, but I would like to be able to edit the DID page. You need to accept that others would like to work on this page. ~ty (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1. What changes? Diffs would be helpful.
2. How are they justified by policy/policies or guideline/s? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Get real! You know what they are - you reverted them and you already replied to my references so you have seen them - quit playing games! I have to run. We will continue this when I am back. Read the WP policy about allowing new editors to work on a page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs)

If you mean the references on your talk page, that don't mention paranoia, then I have both seen them and commented on why they are irrelevant to this specific point. So if you want to keep paranoia out of the symptom list, you've yet to justify it in a meaningful way. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC

Better

WLU, thank you for (finally) allowing the edits I suggested. Now those parts of the page are correct - according to the vast amount of information that I have read on the subject of DID. Perhaps it will work like this - so you can continue to micro-manage every bit of this page, yet you know little about DID. If at least I and others can point out to you the errors on the article, then you can look into them and fix them. I don't think WP is suppose to work like this, with you being Lord and Master, but whatever works. Thank you for making those changes! You now have the proposed DSM 5 and paranoia issues on the page correct. In fact, I now agree that the entire list of symptoms listed on the article are the currently accepted symptoms of DID. ~ty (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between "I personally don't think this is a symptom of DID" and "the source supporting inclusion of paranoia as a symptom is a primary source" is significant and if you can't appreciate it, you shouldn't be editing the page. The similarities between our edits are coincidental and differ substantially in compliance with policy. It is not sufficient to "know a lot about DID" - you must demonstrate this knowledge through the verification of the text through reference to reliable sources in a neutral manner. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just more excuses WLU. I do know the difference. You just want what you want on the page, no matter what is correct. You only want those here that you can control and I WONT BE CONTROLLED by you or anyone else.~ty (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed DSM 5

Updated April-30-12

Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession. This involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. (Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.) The symptoms are not attributable to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).

Specify if:

With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms

Rollback

I've rolled back all of Tylas' recent edits. Here is my reasoning:

• The lead uses a direct quote from the DSM. Altering it flat-out wrong, and I shouldn't have to explain why.
• The DSM also does not use the term "alter" or "alters", nor does Nijenhuis et al.

Who cares, the "rest of the world" (i.e., a large clinical population) uses these terms freqently. As long we aren't stating that the DSM uses the language, it's fine. The term is short for "altered state" and I guess the DSM is using the term "distinct personality state." Daniel Santos (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The removal of "much" from the sentence "There is controversy regarding the validity of this disease" is an idiosyncratic preference that ignores the fact that there is indeed considerable controversy over DID, as evidenced by the numerous references to this point.
• Spelling of "characterized" should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR.
• The statement "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for DID include..." should remain as is, as the verb "include" refers to "criteria", which is plural. As in "The DSM (singular) includes information on DID, and its criteria (plural) include..."
• The DSM is again the citation for the statement "At least two personalities take control of the individual's behavior on a recurrent basis..." The DSM does not use the term "parts of the personality", it actually states "the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states", not parts or fragments. I've adjusted the text to indicate the terms are a quotation from the DSM, and deleted the word "personalities" as the previous sentence incorporates what is taking control.
• I've replaced "personality" in the sentence "In addition to the unique characteristics of multiple personality states with amnesia..." as again this is drawn from the DSM which uses the term "personality states".
• While Dell is the source for the list of the "wide range of symptoms present", it is a primary study of 220 participants, and should not be used per WP:MEDRS and I have removed it. If a secondary source exists that has similar criticisms and corroboration, then I have no issue with the list or a variant thereof being replaced.

Misplaced Pages:MEDRS does not explicitly forbid primary sources and you should know the policies well enough by now that you can't claim to accidentally misuse them. Before removing something for using primary sources, please re-read the policy and make sure that the use of the primary source truly warrents revision or deletion of article verbiage. Under no circumstances is the fact that something is a primary source a sole justification for removing the source its self! Daniel Santos (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea why the statement "...and did not consider the possibility of iatrogenic induction of DID" was removed (more accurately - I believe it was not removed for a policy or guideline-based reason, since Reinders does indeed verify this point on page 47).
• Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters" or "alternate personality" is the distinguishing characteristic of DID" is true, Sar, 2011 (Vedat is the author's first name) doesn't actually verify this point - quite the opposite, Sar states on the very first page of the paper that the difference between DID and DDNOS is a matter of severity rather than qualitative differences. To replace this, a citation actually making the point is required.
• The statement "Psychiatrist Colin Ross and many other well recognized researchers disagree..." may be factually accurate, but the fact is that section is verified by a single reference to Ross, 2009. Adding in the "...and many other well recognized researchers..." misrepresents the source.
• The wikipedia page for complex post-traumatic stress disorder is hyphenated and should not be changed to a redirect page merely because an editor prefers that version.

Also note that I removed a primary source referencing electrophysiological dysfunction, but that's unrelated to the revert. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I will get back to this as time allows.~ty (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to policies and guidelines justifying why your edits were appropriate and my revert was not. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You know the policies! I have stated them many times. YOU won't let anyone edit that you do not micro-manage. You pick and choose parts of research to post and call it valid. Then you sit as judge and jury as to what parts of articles can be referenced. You delete anything, such as the Howell information that discredits your believe that DID is NOT caused by trauma.~ty (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say about the points made above? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You just want to play games and keep me on the talk page. Been there with you. Done that. Not doing it again! ~ty (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your rationale. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that you use the word "Personality" to confuse those that come here to find out what DID is. Most of the information on the DID WP page is cherry picked by WLU to try and support his POV rather support mainstream information. This is not a challenge WLU. I don't want to be editor supreme. I just want the correct information on the DID article.~ty (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gosh it would be nice if you would stop insulting me.

Gosh, it would be nice if you did not DELETE every SINGLE edit I make! I have come here before and was really nice to you. You got an expert on DID banned from the page, in fact you have done the same to many who have DID. You are like a vulture here, watching over every single edit. You do not understand DID, yet you want to control everything that goes in this article. This is suppose to be a community project - it does not belong to JUST YOU! So, yes - you frustrate the heck out of me as well as a whole community of people who suffer with and treat DID.~ty (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I started this section to illustrate why I made the changes, referencing policy and guideline where appropriate. I didn't make any idly. You claim I don't understand DID, yet I can verify my changes quite easily with reference to reliable sources. This suggests that your understanding of DID is not representative of the opinions of all experts in the field, and you are making edits solely to substantiate your understanding. I do not wish to control the article, I just want it to be accurate and neutral. That means leaving in criticisms, not editing direct quotes and not deleting sources out of personal preference. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have said. You cherry pick what you want in the article -throw in a reference. That is not understanding. That is copy and pasting.04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In order for you to claim everything is sad and wrong, you need to demonstrate this using sources. Your recent edits deleted several sourced statements, but added nothing. I'll check the sources your statements are appended to, if they do not support your point explicitly, I will rollback your latest edits. This appears to be yet more insistence that your understanding of DID is the correct one, achieved only by ignoring the considerable number of contradictory publications. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU - this is yet another example that you do not understand DID, thus you copy and paste or re-word parts of articles and call that facts, yet it is out of context of the whole article and not the general direction of the psychology community as a whole. It's just what you want to look at. Please, read more literature. You have stated before that you have no interest in reading or understanding the traumatic viewpoint at all. Once you have done this, then comment. Until then, you are only taking a stance of a minute chunk of the community. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In the past you have discounted information that says that if you abuse a child it can do them harm, but this study shows this is certainly not the case - I do know you will give a list of reasons to not use this study.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which study? Do you mean this one that you try to link to below? That's a primary source and shouldn't be used. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I knew you would say that! I agree that is should not be used, but it should be read and understood! This is the direction that researchers are going - they are starting to understand trauma and what is really going on. You appear to want WP to report the dark ages. That can go in the history section. There are many articles and books that report this same sort of thing. I have listed them before, yet you ignore the references and delete the edits.~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this addresses the fact that it is a primary source. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only a lot because you have cherry picked research that has been discounted by mainstream psychology as bunk, but even so it makes researchers jump through hoops to disprove things that have a shred of reality to them - rather than the whole story.] (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That discounts the numerous sources that quite clearly state it is controversial. I believe I've read Howell, it's a book chapter that is a lot of summary of the researcher's individual experience, and less the overall literature. The articles I've recently acquired make the point that the research base hasn't changed much, and hasn't changed the controversy. I'll integrate them at some point. As a matter of fact, peer reviewed articles are much closer to the mainstream than book chapters, since they are peer reviewed and thus forced to undergo a more thorough scrutiny. Further, the articles I've been focusing on have discussed both sides of the controversy, not just one while ignoring the other. So no, no cherry picking. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinders, A.A.T. S. et al. ‘Fact or factitious: a psychobiological study of authentic and simulated dissociative identity states’ PLoS ONE (29 June 2012) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039279~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/news/records/2012/June/multiple-personality-disorder.asp

This is nothing but cherry picking. I really doubt you have read Howell's books. Before you claimed you have no interest in reading information on DID unless the research claims that DID is NOT caused by trauma. ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Rollback made by WLU is the term used by Nijenhuis - One of the authors of the Haunted Self. The term Nijenhuis uses is ANP. I am extremely comfortable with structural dissociation and ANP's and EP's. I would love to use these terms for the article. I do happen to have the Haunted Self here with me in a hotel room. What would you like to know about this book and Nijenhuis?~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"While Dell is the source....." - This article you removed is an excellent source and should be included in the WP page. A vast host of research says the same as Dell's 2006 research article. Do you even pay attention to how many use a certain article as a reference? You keep looking at your WP rules as black and white. Things are not that simple. What point in Dell's article exactly do you have problems with? It's a vast work that covers a huge amount of research.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not an excellent source, a primary source and thus inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Though I have little doubt that the statement "The concept of "alters...

Cherry picked and out of context again. Read Dell 2006 again to understand that an Alter is only one of many characteristics of DID. Which type of DDNOS (DDNEC) They do vary. Severity is a word taken out of context. It needs a lot of explanation. It means that with DID the dissociative barriers are more intact than with DDNOS-1.~ty (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Another of your arguments from the top paragraph. A-D are the minimum criterion to receive a DX of DID. There are many more symptoms. Dell's 2006 article that WLU just deleted, is a great summary of them - something that took 5 years of research by this brilliant man. The DSM shows the MINIMUM criteria for a DX - as anyone who is actually qualified to DX knows. This means that ALL things listed in the DSM are required criteria for this DX and receive equal weight. Another problem is when lay persons try and use these definitions, not knowing exactly what they mean.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).

B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.

C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance(e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). Note: In children, thesymptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.~ty (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dell is a primary source, a review of a single sample of participants, and should not be used. Do you have a review article, a secondary source as required by WP:MEDRS, to source the list of symptoms? If not, we should not replace the list. A primary point here is that if you want a basic bit of information in the lead, it should be easy to source it to multiple authors, the point should be controversial. If Nijenhuis is the sole author who uses a specific set of terms, it should not be in the lead, it should be in the body. More later. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of us know the real reason you now removed Dell - since it has been on here for a while and you did not care less. You have probably now actually read it and know it totally discounts your POV~ty (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

posttraumatic is spelled thus and if it is not this way on the article it's because it has been changed recently. I can't say I like it that way, but it is how it is suppose to be.~ty (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WLU, be patient! I will add and review reference starting tomorrow. It's too difficult to do on this tiny netbook in a hotel room away from all my references. Thank you so much for allowing me to work on the article and not reverting things as soon as I have done them today.~ty (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You may think you know why I removed Dell, but I don't care. All I care about is that it is a primary source. If you want to change the spelling of posttraumatic stress disorder, do that first because right now that is the spelling of the page on wikipedia. I believe it has been debated at length, so you should review the talk page archives for such a discussion.

Once again your discussion seems to consist mostly of accusations against my motives rather than justifications per policies, guidelines and sources. This is not helpful and doesn't make the page better. Please justify your edits per the P&G, or stop making them. WLU

(t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have argue that such a discussion can indeed be helpful if your motives are to keep the article a misrepresentation of DID, based upon your own personal view point. I recall encountering quite similar problems when I tried to improve the article. I've been out of the loop on this article for too long. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling that most have encountered this same battle when trying to work on this article. I look forward to some help and am excited that I am finally able to contribute to the DID article. I have hope that others that have been silenced can return and do the same.~ty (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Once Again! You revert EVERY SINGLE edit I make! Then you will go to my page and tell me that I am in a revert war - a war you always start anytime I make one edit!~ty (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to be patient and wait for tomorrow when I get home for the references. Please quit deleting every single edit I make! This has gone on for far too long! Why don't you see this as an attack! It is! Or at least it should be. People other than you and those that you micromanage should be able to work on this page!~ty (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

I actually like much of what you have under signs and symptoms. Good job.04:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

Following for the lead paragraph I have described the 3 terms that make up the label DID.

Describe: 1 - Dissociative 2 - Identity 3 - Disorder

3. Dissociative identity disorder DID, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder in the ICD-10) is a psychiatric diagnosis.

1. Dissociative: Dissociative identity disorder DID, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder in the ICD-10), is a psychiatric diagnosis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) one of the essential features of Dissociative Identity Disorder is full dissociation, also called switching, which takes place between distinct personality states. In addition, at least two personality states routinely control behavior, each with associated state dependent memory, also known as dissociative amnesia (amnesia between personality states). Daniel J. Siegel describes clinical dissociation as blocking access to memory and emotions, body numbness or impairments to the continuity of consciousness across states of mind."

2. Identity: Dissociative Identity Disorder is thought to be a psychological trauma based disorder caused by pathological levels of stress during the earliest years of childhood, prior to normal integration. One does not begin life with an integrated mind. For DID to occur there must be disruption in the normal integrative processes of consciousness that occurs during (very early) childhood. E. Howell explains that during infancy behavior is organized as a set of discrete behavioral states which link and group together in sequences over time. An infant needs interpersonal attention, support and encouragement to interconnect their self-states and the varying contexts of their lives." Psychological trauma (the original trauma in those with DID is usually a failure of secure attachment with a primary caregiver) impedes linkage. Abuse will not always result in trauma, but if trauma occurs then the result is dissociation and there is a psychobiological pathway for all trauma-related disorders. Clinical trauma is defined as the event(s) that cause dissociation.

Again, following I move on and begin work on the rest of the lead. "1. -- The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—

2. including any prominent controversies..."

2011-2012 "has been a time for taking stock of progress in the field of dissociative disorders and complex trauma," but controversy does exist. It is not the existence of Dissociative Identity Disorder that is in question, it is the etiology of the trauma model of mental disorders in general that brings with it the usual heated debate. Those who oppose a trauma based etiology claim that identities are created via an iatrogenic effect of certain psychotherapeutic practices or by popular interest. Colin A. Ross points out the errors of logic and scholarship that the quite vocal disbelievers of trauma based disorders, Piper and Merskey, have made in their publications concerning DID. There has been passionate debate as to the origin of DID throughout history

3. -- Dissociative Identity Disorder is less common than other dissociative disorders, occurring in approximately 10% of dissociative disorder cases and 0.5-3% of the general population. Females tend to outnumber males in this disorder, resulting in about a 9:1 ratio. Diagnosis is often difficult as there is considerable co-morbidity with other conditions and many symptoms overlap with other types of mental illness. Dissociative disorders, including DID are often mistaken for other disorders by those that are not trained or educated in in trauma psychology.

Thank you for the fix 24.84.200.123 ! ~ty (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

I did not want to change much beyond the lead, but I started to dig into the signs and symptoms and find many problems that I just cannot leave there. There were changes to the direct quote from the DSM IV. That is easy to clean up, but then I go below that note the first sentence here basically says the same as the last and the middle section is far from inclusive, selecting just a few items to focus on.

So... I am going to dive into this section. I would like to explain what the DSM IV criteria is and give references for those explanations.

Daily functioning can vary from severely impaired to normal to high.

Other features that may be essential to the condition include chronic depersonalization and derealization, disturbances with memory, identity confusion and auditory hallucinations that seem to come from inside the patient's own head.

The clinical presentation, level of symptom severity and level of daily functioning varies widely.

Oh my... this whole page needs some reorganization. I am just moving things around so they make sense. Please be patient. ~ty (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Trauma Model

Working on this section, but it will take some time. There is a lot of good stuff in there, but much is the same things

Concerning this message

Jarble, what is confusing. I think the page is getting organized rather than complicated in my opinion. Now it flows. It makes sense. It explains DID. The terminology used is common to those of us that have DID. It is not over the top scientific by any means. Please show me the text with issues and I would be extremely happy to look at it. :) In the meantime, I am going to stop for a bit and do some proofreading to make sure all is in order and look for vague statements, etc... Thank You.~ty (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a problem! I keep a copy in my sandbox and accidentally copied an old one from that to the DID page - since I see no reverts, that is all that could have happened! I am going through it again to try and find all the errors. Let me know other areas that could be more clear. I appreciate the help.

~ty (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I like this new lead, but it still has some issues that need to be ironed out.

• You give a description of clinical dissociation that isn't consistient with the main article. Your description inclucdes "body numbness or impairments" which I did not see in the main article. I guess the main article needs to be updated to include information about the characteristics of clinical dissociation (i.e., when it is pathology). However, this sentence is attempting to describe dissociation in the context of DID, where these symptoms are quite applicable. Still, I think this can be worded better.

Fixed. Good suggestion. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The final sentence in the opening paragraph "but if trauma occurs then the result is clinical dissociation" should probably be more clear that it's talking about early childhood trauma (maybe?). I know that's the topic of the previous sentence, maybe somebody else can toss in an opinion about that. (As an aside, most of the older literature described this phemonena as a case of very young children not having yet developed more sophistocated coping skills and are forced to restort to disccociation when sever stress occurs. I'm behind on the literature on this particular issue.)

Fixed. Good suggestion. That would take a lot of explaining that might be best done on the wp dissociation page. Thank you ~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Believe it nor not, there are actually articles published as recently as 2011 (that I am aware of) that call into question the existence of DID its self! So the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not correct to my knowledge. However, the lead is not the place to explore the controversy in depth and is treated far too much here. The bulk of this should be moved to the controversy section. I think that what's important for the lead is that we present the basic information: what DID is (which I think the first paragraph does fairly well), a little about the controversy and some well-sourced statistics should be enough.

Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Done.~ty (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder Today

I see some unsourced statements in this section.

• While the "10% of the general population" may indeed be true, it needs to be sourced. If there are studies that can back up the 10% number, it can stay as-is. However, my (admittedly out-dated) understanding is that various clinicians have various numbers that are estimates based upon their clinical work. These numbers are legit for WP, as long as they are presented accurately (i.e., as estimates by experts). This is a point that people love to bicker about, so I think we should strive for as much accuracy here as possible. The science clearly desmonstrates is that its far more prevelant than previously thought, so the information is quite important and relevant.

I am glad for some helpful company in here. I had the exact number on my to do list - since I just read through the etiology. There seems to be conflicting numbers throughout the article. Thank you so much for pointing all this out to me and not just reverting all I do!~ty (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The intermixing of information with DDNOS is a bit cluttered here. It is indeed the case that many suvivors of severe child abuse end up with DDNOS and not DID. However, we can't include their numbers under the DID umbrella, since we're talking about the specific diagnosis of DID. However, it is appropriate if you present the information about the relationship between diagnosies (sourced, of couse) and then present the numbers that represent the defined spectrum of disorders. IMO, its fine to work on knowledge from previous studies lacking sources, if the sources are added soon thereafter. Else, unsourced information is legitimately subject to deletion (even if it's accurate and well-worded). This is my opionion because I find that this paragraph contributes well to the article.

Daniel Santos (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again Daniel! I deleted them and agree with you. I do want to make the article clean! I always strive for A+ work. It's time to make this a top article.~ty (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question - So much in the article is copy and paste and taken out of context, which is totally misleading - but it has a reference. We want to reword, not copy, but keep the meaning as close to the original authors as possible - correct?~ty (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• History Section - It seems too long. Thoughts? I read a new book today - (2009) Treating DID by S. Krakaur. The history section (including controversy) is outstanding and of course, like the title says, it went into treatment. I will have to share some of the best parts on the DID page.

• Also, I have a question that really bugs me and I can't get a straight answer from anything I have read - granted I stay away from general media stories. I keep reading that there is controversy, understanding of course that people use that word to sensationalize and generate interest in a subject, even in research papers, but speaking total down to earth - am I correct that both sides of that controversy admit that DID exists?

The FM crowd must believe DID exists to say it can be created through iatrogenic methods. (Off the topic, but the trauma crowd does not argue that DID symptoms can come from iatrogenic methods.

Is the debate that some don't believe that DID can be caused by trauma at all and all of us with DID had it created in therapy or through media even if we were never exposed to it by either route?

This is why I had in the top section that the debate is about how DID is caused. Not that DID exists.

If the debate is that DID exists at all, would that not be too extreme of a POV and minute of a population to put on WP? ~ty (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just, WOW. You are so sucked into your own extreme POV on this topic that you don't appear to know what the various critics of DID even say. No, you don't have to believe a disorder really exists to say that the *symptoms* are caused iatrogenically. That's like saying that the people who say so-called possessed people are just responding in a way that fits in with their religious tradition are therefore arguing spiritual possession is real. You don't even seem to understand the basic meanings of these words, and you then use your lack of understanding to create straw man arguments. You also certainly have no clue on what is "too extreme". Over the past several years, the general consensus of experts is that DID is not a naturally-occurring disorder. This is not extreme, this is the common professional view. Now, of course people whose livelihoods depend on having patients think this is a real disorder caused by some terrible trauma (that most of the time never really happened) in their childhood are going to disagree. That's like saying that snake oil salesmen all say their snake oil is beneficial and wonderful and trying to claim that people who say that it's all a scam are somehow "too extreme" to be included. DreamGuy (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. I do believe in both the iatrogenic and traumatic views as I have stated and referenced in the article. If you have problems with exact words, please do go and edit those, but don't revert the entire thing. Have you read the research in 2012? Or are you looking at old data? There is a big difference from creating a temp alter and having DID from childhood. How would you state the difference? I am very open to suggestions. Please quit attacking and accusing. I will show you article that say different from you. Those people are the experts - the ones cited, not you Sir. That is your POV that people write and believe such things because of their livelihoods.~ty (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that I just started to really work on the controversy section and would enjoy your help and input on this. I in no way want to make it one sided, in fact, I was trying to find information to lend credit to the sociocongnitive view - but had to be away all day. I would also love help on the history. ~ty (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The "symptoms of DID" part is changed at your request. Is there anything else that you find unsatisfactory?~ty (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing and WP:OWN problems just completely off the scale

You know, I thought that Tylas had said he was leaving forever after the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation and his other bad behavior, but it looks like he was just waiting for other editors to stop paying attention so he could completely take over. He made the vast majority of the last 1,000 edits all by himself (!!!!!!), being basically a total rewrite of the version that was put together through a hard-fought consensus. The previous version as it existed, and which I reverted to, was already substantially slanted toward the DID-is-real camp (mischaracterizing the full extent of the controversy, hiding the belief that the diagnosis is not real/caused by therapists behind jargon most readers do not understand, etc.), but the one Tylas came up with was just completely off the scale bad.

Let me put this simply: This is not how Misplaced Pages works. You don't get to take over an article completely by aggressive edits. You reverted WLU until he gave up, used the talk page to talk yourself about how you thought your own changes were good, and totally ignored the entire basis of what Misplaced Pages is for.

This will not stand. I will try to go through the differences between the two versions looking for anything in Tylas' version that is acceptable, but since the problems it introduced were off the scale bad it had to be reverted in full,and, again, the version it went back to is still pretty bad also.

Controversial edits needs to have consensus. These most recent changes absolutely do not. Please get consensus before making any changes. In other words, exactly what Tylas was told over and over and over again back in January. The rules don't change just because some of us weren't paying as close attention as they should. DreamGuy (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please quite being irrational DreamGuy, but at least your are not swearing at me this time. I am sorry to burst your bubble by my return, but a human does have a change of mind now and then. You tried to accuse me of being a sock puppet of Tom Cloyd, if I remember right, but the charge was dismissed and no one ever brought them to my attention other than you. In other words, it was just your accusal and nothing more. I am a she, not a he - which you know since you were looking me up off WP last time I tried to work on this page and you got so angry at me for wanting any changes at all. I am quite welcome to anyone helping edit, but I am not going to play your game again of staying on the talk page to reach some sort of agreement with you. That just ended in a long battle with nothing being done to the page - which I have to assume is your goal. There have been 2 editors in that last several days that I have been working on the DID article and I have gone to their page and welcomed their edits: Daniel Santos and jcarroll. The version that you put back is far from a version all editors agree on. It was a version that a couple of guards stood by not allowing changes to. Please educate yourself on current literature on DID and you will see the direction, I was in the MIDDLE of working on, was correct - which did very much include the controversy. There was a section on sociocognitive and controversy, which I believe are the 2 sections you have stock in. You are not the sole editor for this article. I simply want to share my knowledge of DID on WP. What I wrote stands but you are more than welcome to help me and others who have interest work on it, but do not revert it. That was just wrong. I did not do "aggressive edits"! I did them slowly - oh so slowly in fact - most things one at a time so anyone could come in at any time and question anything. Daniel Santos did just that and I worked on his excellent suggestions. I did not revert WLU until he gave up. Again, I doubt I have ever been able to have ONE edit stand on this page until now. In case this version is reverted again, for those watching please see the version that I have been working on - step by step in my sandbox and compare the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tylas/sandbox ~ty (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Views of the Sociocognitive Group

Take a look at this abstract from a 2012 Review that I added to the article! This is certainly a pro-iatrogenic view. I have no problem adding this view in the proper place in the article as Daniel Santos pointed out to me.

Abstract Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders Challenging Conventional Wisdom <-- Conventional is the Traumatic View

Conventional wisdom holds that dissociation is a coping mechanism triggered by exposure to intense stressors. Drawing on recent research from multiple laboratories, we challenge this prevailing posttraumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders. Proponents of this model hold that dissociation and dissociative disorders are associated with (a) intense objective stressors (e.g., childhood trauma), (b) serious cognitive deficits that impede processing of emotionally laden information, and (c) an avoidant information-processing style characterized by a tendency to forget painful memories. We review findings that contradict these widely accepted assumptions and argue that a sociocognitive model better accounts for the extant data. We further propose a perspective on dissociation based on a recently established link between a labile sleep–wake cycle and memory errors, cognitive failures, problems in attentional control, and difficulties in distinguishing fantasy from reality. We conclude that this perspective may help to reconcile the posttraumatic and sociocognitive models of dissociation and dissociative disorders.

New Edits

Thanks for the fix 212.156.92.130! ~ty (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend : Thank you for your help editing

I would love to correct errors but I am not sure this is one. Did you mean that the criteria I have below by the DSM IV is not full dissociation? You put: not in citation

DSM IV: At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior

This is what This is what full dissociation is.

Does the DSM IV use the term "full dissociation"? I've never heard that term used. Do you mean that there are at least two identities that are "fully dissociated" e.g. none of them have a clue about the others? That all the personalities are completely independent? There needs to be a citation for that statement. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Tylas, do you realize that one editor (you) has edited this article more than all the other editors put together? - and that's with an estimated lag for en.wikipedia.org: 4 days, 22 hours! Please consider what you are doing.

and what is that spinning brain doing at the top of the article? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew! I am so happy to have some help here! I see that I need to explain on the page the definition. Thank you! Rather than me explain, I shall do so in the words of E. Howell. "The phenomenon generally considered most characteristic of DID is switching: Different internal identities can be prone to suddenly taking executive charge, in effect pushing the identity that had previously been in charge, out of charge. This generally results in amnesia on the part of the identity that had been pushed aside for the events that occurred while the other identity was in control Switching is also known as full dissocation" She cites: Dell 2009 ~ty (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

hi Tylas. Are you being careful to follow WP:MEDRS? I believe you can't select the words of one author as the "reliable source". And be careful to follow Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew. I will look at it. So that is Howell and Kluft. That makes 2 right. Actually, I can use any term, it does not matter to me at all, but I believe many authors understand full dissociation this way. I will study the page you gave me and put it to full use! Thank you again! ~ty (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

it matters to wikipedia though. If you find multiple reliable sources, stating that "full dissociation" is a common term, that would be good, though I don't think the DSM uses it or recognizes it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

History

I spent the last 2 days reading about the history of DID. FM and SG people are going to love this!~ty (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry to leave the history section as is for the night, but I will work on it as soon as I wake. There are so many exciting things in history that pertain directly to DID I would like to get in there. ~ty (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

.. some people say, many scholars state, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...

Okay, someone just threw this at the top of the page. I will gladly go through the article and look for these problems. Help with this would be wonderful! ~ty (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Mid-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages