Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:35, 31 May 2012 editVanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5 (talk | contribs)4,127 edits →Better← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:38, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 13) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Old peer review|ID=1243879136|reviewedname=Dissociative identity disorder|date=4 September 2024|archive=2}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=mid}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=mid }}
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}}
|-
}}
! align="center" | ]<br />]
{{Article History
----
|action1=PR
|-
|action1date=21:40:23 11 September 2012 (UTC)
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Dissociative identity disorder/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=936990224
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |units=days |index=/Archive index |
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


* ] * ]
|} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 9 |counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{refideas|state=collapsed
|1={{cite journal |last1=Soldati |first1=Lorenzo |last2=Hasler |first2=Roland |last3=Recordon |first3=Nathalie |last4=Clement |first4=Marie |last5=Köhl |first5=John |last6=Perroud |first6=Nader |title=Gender Dysphoria and Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Case Report and Review of Literature |journal=Sexual Medicine |date=1 October 2022 |volume=10 |issue=5 |pages=100553 |doi=10.1016/j.esxm.2022.100553 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S205011612200068X |language=en |issn=2050-1161}}
|2={{cite journal |last1=Boysen |first1=Guy A. |last2=VanBergen |first2=Alexandra |title=A Review of Published Research on Adult Dissociative Identity Disorder: 2000–2010 |journal=The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease |date=January 2013 |volume=201 |issue=1 |pages=5 |doi=10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827aaf81 |url=https://journals.lww.com/jonmd/fulltext/2013/01000/A_Review_of_Published_Research_on_Adult.2.aspx |issn=0022-3018}}
|3={{cite journal |last1=Schenk |first1=L. |last2=Bear |first2=D. |title=Multiple personality and related dissociative phenomena in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy |journal=The American Journal of Psychiatry |date=October 1981 |volume=138 |issue=10 |pages=1311–1316 |doi=10.1176/ajp.138.10.1311 |pmid=7294186 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7294186/ |access-date=6 March 2023 |issn=0002-953X}}
|4={{cite journal |last1=Sandel |first1=M. E. |last2=Weiss |first2=B. |last3=Ivker |first3=B. |title=Multiple personality disorder: diagnosis after a traumatic brain injury |journal=Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation |date=June 1990 |volume=71 |issue=7 |pages=523–525 |pmid=2350225 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2350225/ |access-date=6 March 2023 |issn=0003-9993}}
|5={{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=S. D. |title=Optical differences in cases of multiple personality disorder |journal=The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease |date=August 1989 |volume=177 |issue=8 |pages=480–486 |doi=10.1097/00005053-198908000-00005 |pmid=2760599 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2760599/ |access-date=6 March 2023 |issn=0022-3018}}
}} }}


== Clean list of sources == == We should remove the infobox ==

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

* Farrell, 2011, Dissociative Identity Disorder: Medicolegal Challenges
* 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...
:::::{{cite doi|10.1037/a0026487}}
* 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
*

== The possible connection between having an alter ego and having Dissociative Identity Disorder. ==

I am trying to clean up and revitalize the "alter ego" article and i am trying to state the possibility of there being a link between Dissociative Identity Disorder and having an alter ego. I am having trouble and i was wondering if i am to research this, what qualify as an acceptable resource ? I have started gathering information, and I think that this would be an amazing contribution to both articles. Help would be appreciated, Thank you in advance. Your opinion matters.

] (]) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

:AFAIK, alter egos are more in the vein of being the complete opposite of the normal "ego" of the person, whereas "alters" (alternate personalities in DID) are more distinct and not generally "completely opposite" of the host personality - although Jekyll and Hyde does come up in both articles and a google scholar search will give you a lot of information based on that. Sorry I can't help more. ] (]) 01:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
: article is the one used in the DID article, and it does say it's used now as a classic case of DID in literature, but does not call them alter egos anywhere in the text. ] (]) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

== Paranoia ==


The infobox is particularly problematic because it presents one cause ''"the trauma model"'' as fact, when it is . It is particularly difficult to include the sociogenic model in there too. Infoboxes are '''not''' required on articles, and I think this might well constitute a ]: {{tq|"A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse"}}.The problem is I cannot see how it would be "improved" without becoming absurdly long and confusing. Thus, it makes more sense to remove it entirely. ] (]) 22:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:Note that a discussion about this is occurring at ], but I will attempt to move it here so more editors can comment. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


:Bump? ] (]) 03:20, 27 November 2023 (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! ] (]) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::I think the cause has been updated to "disputed". I agree with you, however, it a really long infobox, which sort of defeats the purpose. ] (]) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::How do you define "good" research? Becuase it sounds like by "good" you mean "research I already agree with". ] 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 ].
:::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 your change to the DSM-V section because the rationale tab of the 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


== Page should be deleted ==
:::::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. ] (]) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Do you accept that ''Psychiatry'' is not a ]? Do you accept that it is in fact a ]? Rather than again ] and ], 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 ], 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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.] (]) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:What evidence have you presented? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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.] (]) 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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 ] 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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. ] (]) 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 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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


or at least make it sure that it's clear that DID is a fictitious disorder ] (]) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
== Unable to make simple edits ==


:It's in the DSM, which is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. ] (]) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
'''New Editors to a page should have the right to make GOOD edits.'''
::The page shouldn't be deleted, but the disorder is . As for DSM, ] who lead the DSM-5 development wanted to delete the disorder entirely. ] (]) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Opinions are divided as to its origins, or whether it is even a naturally occurring disorder at all, but there is no doubt that there are those who show its symptoms or that it can be observed in parts of the world. The page should obviously not be deleted; DID is an observable phenomenon and whether one believes it is "real" or iatrogenic, culture-bound, sociogenic or caused by trauma, it is notable and merits inclusion. If you feel the article needs more information, you are welcome to contribute. ] 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:Deleteing the page I think is a bit of an exaggeration, Misplaced Pages obviously should have a page on DID; however, I get where he is coming from. I took a couple of Psych courses in college, and while they didn't go that far into last I checked psychologists didn't really believe in it. In fact, the last time I heard about somebody claiming to have DID they were treated the same way as someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens. (It was on Doctor Phil, and in the end, it was revealed that he was abusing veritably every illegal drug on the market. His brain was so smashed up that it was hard to imagine any mental or cognitive symptoms that he wouldn't be facing, but you can't trust a guy on meth). The disbelief in DID wasn't just something amongst Ivy League doctors, for all the flack the movie Split got for demonizing mental illness it is safe to say that M.N. Shyamalan wouldn't make a horror film where the monster is somebody who is autistic, or bipolar. The writers and the actors only made the film because DID didn't exist in their minds.
:Yet this page makes it sound like the skeptics are the odd ones out, fringe detractors from a well-established diagnosis. So either a monumental shift has happened in the world of psychology, or this article is leaving out a whole lot of context regarding how much the idea is disapproved. Perhaps I have just happened to find myself surrounded by what is actually the minority opinion whenever DID comes up, but I've seen Misplaced Pages articles about topics that I think are much more widely accepted where the subject is outright described as pseudo-science in the first two sentences. So, the fact that the controversy isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph is quite alarming.] (]) 03:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:Do you mean Factitious? Or am I misinterpreting that? ] (]) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Here is a webpage that may help: https://did-research.org/controversy/malingering/pseudogenic ] (]) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Key Features section has no sources ==
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. ] (]) 17:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:#What changes? ] would be helpful.
:#How are they justified by policy/policies or guideline/s? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


I know this is a controversial page and I’m afraid to wade into it, but the “Key Features” section makes a lot of claims without any sources. Some of that information might be relevant if it were presented as definitions of words commonly used by DID subcultures, but the section as it stands presents a lot of information as fact without any citations, and arguably contradicts some of the information written elsewhere on the page. ] (]) 02:08, 3 September 2024 (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! {{unsigned|Tylas}}
:::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. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC


:When it comes to such a heavy debated topic such as DID, the lack of any citation on the entire section makes it harmful to the integrity of the article. The user who originally added said section had made multiple additions to articles on the site with zero citations, and seems to show little regard to Misplaced Pages's content style. ] (]) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 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 ] of the text through reference to ] in a ]. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 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.] (]) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


== Significant event relating to this in Australia. ==
== Proposed DSM 5 ==


I dont know how to write medical stuff, so I am simply linking this in.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-05/father-accused-sexual-abuse-multiple-personalities-verdict/104674820
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).


Why this appears to be IMPORTANT to me as a layman is, as the article says, that the court treated each separate personality as an separate individual, even going so far as to swear in each personality as a witness as a separate person. This to me as a layman signifies that the court has accepted the existence of separate personalities as REALITY. ] (]) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Specify if:


:this is not a ]. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 19:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms
::Could be DUE to write something under ] heading. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25#Did}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]] 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:38, 26 December 2024

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.
Article policies
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: 3 months 
Dissociative identity disorder (final version) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which on 4 September 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 11, 2012Peer reviewReviewed

Archives
  1. Start to December, 2004
  2. January–December, 2005
  3. January–February, 2006
  4. February–December, 2006
  5. January–October, 2007
  6. November, 2007 – August, 2008
  7. September, 2008 – January, 2012
  8. January, 2012 – February, 2012
  9. February, 2012 – July, 2012
  10. July, 2012
  11. July, 2012 to August, 2012
  12. August, 2012 to present

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Reference ideas for Dissociative identity disorderThe following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

We should remove the infobox

The infobox is particularly problematic because it presents one cause "the trauma model" as fact, when it is disputed by the scientific community. It is particularly difficult to include the sociogenic model in there too. Infoboxes are not required on articles, and I think this might well constitute a WP:DISINFOBOX: "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse".The problem is I cannot see how it would be "improved" without becoming absurdly long and confusing. Thus, it makes more sense to remove it entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bump? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the cause has been updated to "disputed". I agree with you, however, it a really long infobox, which sort of defeats the purpose. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Page should be deleted

or at least make it sure that it's clear that DID is a fictitious disorder 2A00:23C8:903:FE01:2C69:DE3A:315D:3FD3 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in the DSM, which is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. lizthegrey (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The page shouldn't be deleted, but the disorder is certainly disputed as an organic phenomena. As for DSM, Allen Frances who lead the DSM-5 development wanted to delete the disorder entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Opinions are divided as to its origins, or whether it is even a naturally occurring disorder at all, but there is no doubt that there are those who show its symptoms or that it can be observed in parts of the world. The page should obviously not be deleted; DID is an observable phenomenon and whether one believes it is "real" or iatrogenic, culture-bound, sociogenic or caused by trauma, it is notable and merits inclusion. If you feel the article needs more information, you are welcome to contribute. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleteing the page I think is a bit of an exaggeration, Misplaced Pages obviously should have a page on DID; however, I get where he is coming from. I took a couple of Psych courses in college, and while they didn't go that far into last I checked psychologists didn't really believe in it. In fact, the last time I heard about somebody claiming to have DID they were treated the same way as someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens. (It was on Doctor Phil, and in the end, it was revealed that he was abusing veritably every illegal drug on the market. His brain was so smashed up that it was hard to imagine any mental or cognitive symptoms that he wouldn't be facing, but you can't trust a guy on meth). The disbelief in DID wasn't just something amongst Ivy League doctors, for all the flack the movie Split got for demonizing mental illness it is safe to say that M.N. Shyamalan wouldn't make a horror film where the monster is somebody who is autistic, or bipolar. The writers and the actors only made the film because DID didn't exist in their minds.
Yet this page makes it sound like the skeptics are the odd ones out, fringe detractors from a well-established diagnosis. So either a monumental shift has happened in the world of psychology, or this article is leaving out a whole lot of context regarding how much the idea is disapproved. Perhaps I have just happened to find myself surrounded by what is actually the minority opinion whenever DID comes up, but I've seen Misplaced Pages articles about topics that I think are much more widely accepted where the subject is outright described as pseudo-science in the first two sentences. So, the fact that the controversy isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph is quite alarming.50.53.196.40 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean Factitious? Or am I misinterpreting that? 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is a webpage that may help: https://did-research.org/controversy/malingering/pseudogenic 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Key Features section has no sources

I know this is a controversial page and I’m afraid to wade into it, but the “Key Features” section makes a lot of claims without any sources. Some of that information might be relevant if it were presented as definitions of words commonly used by DID subcultures, but the section as it stands presents a lot of information as fact without any citations, and arguably contradicts some of the information written elsewhere on the page. 2603:8080:C900:850B:48F8:DED2:7E4D:AE36 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to such a heavy debated topic such as DID, the lack of any citation on the entire section makes it harmful to the integrity of the article. The user who originally added said section had made multiple additions to articles on the site with zero citations, and seems to show little regard to Misplaced Pages's content style. 76.68.185.74 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Significant event relating to this in Australia.

I dont know how to write medical stuff, so I am simply linking this in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-05/father-accused-sexual-abuse-multiple-personalities-verdict/104674820

Why this appears to be IMPORTANT to me as a layman is, as the article says, that the court treated each separate personality as an separate individual, even going so far as to swear in each personality as a witness as a separate person. This to me as a layman signifies that the court has accepted the existence of separate personalities as REALITY. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:701F:B8BF:952E:A585 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

this is not a WP:MEDRS. IntentionallyDense 19:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Could be DUE to write something under Legal issues heading. lizthegrey (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Did" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Did has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25 § Did until a consensus is reached. KOLANO12 3 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: