Misplaced Pages

Awards - overdue and richly deserved

I've been around Misplaced Pages for a while, but I've never before seen your rare combination of perspicacity and civility. I wanted to give recognition to your remarkable contributions to the ongoing struggle to make the Dissociative Identity Disorder article more correct and useful. When I entered into this struggle, I didn't expect to encounter someone with my level of passion and persistence for this subject. Surprise!!!

I am continually amazed, delighted, and gratified by your contributions. It is a remarkable gift to the community, both small (Wikipedian - rather large, actually) and large (the rest of the blessed world!). I am well beyond grateful for what you do. I therefore have no choice but to award you TWO barnstars simultaneously (I've never seen this done before); to do less would be to perpetrate a misrepresentation of your value to us:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to Tylas for her untiring responsiveness in the torrent of hostile chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page in recent weeks, as well as her multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. Your knowledge of the literature is manifestly broad and deep, and your many ways of sharing this knowledge is an educational experience for all us who are capable of learning (and a missed wakeup call for all others!) Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Awarded to Tylas for her unfailing politeness and good humor, in the face of a broad range of uncouth and completely uncalled-for responses and behavior, while working on the Misplaced Pages DID article. I've never before in my entire life seen such an impressive display of the power of "nice". Awesome, thought-provoking, and effective. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww.....! Thank you! I am blushing from head to toes! :) I got barn stars! I am so excited! ~ty (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now we gotta find you a barn. That'll take a little time. I just know I have one around here somewhere...Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GOT IT! Milk cow barn, north of Everson, Washington . (It was a bitterly cold day - Christmas eve, 2008.) Am deeding this to you. It needs more barnstars, though. Get back to work! Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Home barn of the wild Tylas

Ha ha... you are too funny. -laughing- ~ty (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for all your hard work on wikipedia. your awesome.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww!! You are a sweetheart! Thank you! ~ty (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi Tylas! Although you may not have a big number of edits, but you have been on Misplaced Pages for a long time and i feel that you can surely contribute your best here more often in many articles and other areas too! A nice editor with great potential and a good friend :). Hope to see you around more soon :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank You! That is kind of you! I keep trying to edit the DID page and run into an obstacle. Maybe some day it will be more new editor friendly.~ty (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You Are a Superhero!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Tylas for her valiant assault against the fradulant use of Misplaced Pages to silence survivors of severe child abuse through gross misrepresentation of its symptoms (i.e., Dissociative Identity Disorder). Thank you! Daniel Santos (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If they had an actual "Superhero" award, I would have given you that instead! Thank you so much! Daniel Santos (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww! You have made my morning. Each day I wake wondering if a "silencer" will be here to attack and instead I am greeting with a friend. :) ~ty (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Smiles for you!

TheGeneralUser (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Just came around to say Hi :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwww... this made my day! I never come to WP expecting anything good, but this is awesome! Are you the same Generaluser that has worked on the DID page before? If so, this is probably a sympathy smile. ;) ~ty (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Heya Tylas! I am greatly happy and thankful to have received your sweet smile . You are one of those Wikipedians who always try to defuse conflicts, consistently lighten the mood and always make Misplaced Pages an Awesome place to be ! Keep up the great work by editing and improving Misplaced Pages like you always do as you have a great future ahead. I am confident that we both will strive and work together to make Misplaced Pages the best! Regards and Happy Editing!! TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh! You are a sweetheart! Thank you so much! I am trying really hard to make a little corner of WP an accurate place for people to get their information. Tanya~talk page 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A Rose for you! :)

A red rose for someone dear to my heart.
Love, TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwww..... Thank you so much General User! I see you are editing the DID page too! I so welcome some unbiased help there! Thank you so much! Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 16:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Angel Heart Barnstar!

		The Angel Heart Barnstar
		Tylas I don't have enough words to thank you for your nice, friendly and sweet help you offer and do it for me many times! You always help me in good faith no matter if you know about something or not. I am overwhelmed and flattered by your kindness and willingness to help me and other people whenever possible :). We both as part of the Misplaced Pages community always try to make this a more better place to be which I'm proud of. Wish you all the best in your future work and life! Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww.... how sweet! You are a dear! Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 20:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Refreshing Bubble Tea and Juice for Tylas!

Relax and Enjoy your day with some Bubble Tea and Juice! This will Refresh, Re-energize and give you a great energy to work on Misplaced Pages :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you dear. How is your user page project coming along? I should be on the computer all day writing away - if you need any assistance. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I've put the user page project on hold for now, little busy schedule at the moment. If i need any assistance regarding this, I'll be sure to ping you. On the other hand, if you do require any help and assistance from me, feel free to message me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC) A Puppy for you! :) {{NoAutosign}} TheGeneralUser has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Thanks a lot being a Faithful Companion and a Good Wikifriend :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Oh! I love the puppy! My kids just got a new puppy - a black lab, and he is so much fun. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

content expert banned

Tylas, I'm sorry to see you go, though I definitely understand if that is your choice. If you feel you can, it may be worth dropping by the administrators' noticeboard one last time to register a formal "Oppose" vote. All the best. —danhash (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I will continue to monitor the admin board, of course, until this is resolved, but I realize that no one is going to be able to ever edit the DID page as long as WLU is there. I noticed your posts there and like them! You are awesome! ~ty (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider leaving. Maybe take a couple days off and see how that treats you? GL either way Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I will pop in once in a while and see if I can edit anything. In the past 2 editors (you know who) dive in almost as soon as I post something to delete it and argue it.~ty (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Child protection policy on WP

Hello Tanya. I am a member of the Arbitration Committee for the English Misplaced Pages. Among other tasks, Arbcom has a role in handling allegations related to child protection issues. I see that you have had some recent edits deleted by an admin. I also see that you were informed back in February that it was inappropriate to make allegations of this kind on wiki, and that there was a procedure to follow if you had concerns. If you did not intend those comments to sound the way they did, please be more careful in future. If it occurs again, it is likely that you will be blocked. If you have genuine concerns about individual editors, please follow the procedure in Misplaced Pages:Child protection contains details of the appropriate way to report potential child protection issues. If you have any queries, please feel free to email me or talk to your mentor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Yes! Oh! I am so glad to hear from you! I scratched the comments out and then someone was kind enough to delete them, but before I could get the link to find you! I forgot about the February post. Thank you for reminding me. It's hard when something is so important, yet is not allowed discussion here, but I would love to talk to you about this in private and I am so glad to know the correct path to take. I am still wary however and not sure who to trust. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to email me - you can pick my email up from my userpage. What you need to be careful of is accusing individual editors of being paedophiles in public posts, as it always creates a drama, and is very difficult for everyone if you're wrong. That's why the policy insists on off wiki reporting. If you believe that of someone, you should submit the evidence via email as described in the policy. If what you mean is that the argument unwittingly supports child abuse, then you need to word any comments really carefully. Discussing whether academics who do not support a child abuse element for DID are (deliberately or not) providing support for child abuse can be done if supported by sources - ie if it is being discussed at a professional level. Even then, read WP:BLP and be careful if referring to people working in the area. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Elen, but it takes me a while to trust someone and so far WP has not been a friendly place. I really do appreciate this information and will try my hardest not to break WP rules. Also, thank you so much for the link to where Tom Cloyd was banned for being too "passionate about DID". That is really helpful. I know DID well, but I don't know my way around WP yet. I seem to be getting a fast track introduction to it with the topic I have chosen to work on. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Randy from Boise

Yes, topic banning TomCloyd was unfortunate. He knows a great deal about the subject, but got caught out by how to handle opposition to his edits. There is an amusing essay Randy in Boise about the dark side of Misplaced Pages's attitude to expert editors, which you may feel has some relevance here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What I learned about the banning of TomCloyd is that what matters (not in the case of every vote) is how many friends you have on WP that show up to vote. I would rather see one fair judge decide than those who oppose the edits of a user vote. He seemed to live for WP before that incident. He was an ambassador, he traveled to support WP and then was banned. I don't think too many confront the editor he did and come out unscathed. I read the Randy in Boise article, it was linked (at least at one time) from an editors user page. You seem kind, but I am afraid to trust many people. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a hard opposition to handle. If I remember right, all his edits were reverted by WLU. This incident was in February and you know the only edits I have been allowed to keep pertain to 2 images. All else was reverted, mostly by WLU. It gets frustrating. I don't know many people who could handle that sort of thing and keep cool. Cloyd and I are not the only ones, Hash, Santos, Philosophicaldancer all had all their edits reverted as well. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 23:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I read what about Randy in Boise again, and I read what WLU has on his user page, (it maintained a good portion of my thoughts throughout the night) and it could not make more sense! You are brilliant! Thank you for this perspective! :) Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WLU = Randy!

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov

• Guide to WikiProjects
• Directory of WikiProjects

• WP:PSYCHOLOGY
• WP:PSYCH
• WP:PSY
• WP:Ψ

A View of what's going on at the DID page

The world's top researchers in DID report that there is no actual research for the SCM. The expert consensus presents 3 models for DID etiology and the SCM is not one of them. There is no empirical support for the SCM. pdf fileGo here for in-depth information on this problem at WP.

Reference: Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 (2011). The full pdf file is online for free.

WP Rules that I think are important here:

• It is the job of Misplaced Pages to summarize the consensus model of any field, and the ISSTD pdf file has done that for us in their 2011 review paper commissioned by the DSM-5 work group, and the current edition of the DSM. In none of these is there any mention of the SGM as credible in anyway. There is no other consensus. This document pdf file simply has no competition.

• "Fringe opinions simply are not competitors with the professional consensus"
• "Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown."

This is the consensus statement of the international professional association for clinicians and researchers into trauma and dissociation disorders. There is no competing or contending association. There is no competing consensus statement. If anyone wishes to dispute importance they may do so, but your opinion (or mine) is not of value here - as we are not experts on DID. Any sources you may cite will also just be opinions, albeit published ones; the proponents of the SCM have no data. There is nothing to empirically resolve, as there is no empirical support for the SCM. The "belief" of the authors supporting the SC motel, is all you have. Science is not about belief, it is about data. They have none. The models approved by the expert consensus on DID have plenty, and the opinion of the centrist consensus is that the data indicate the validity of the traumagenic model. That is the fact, and that's what we must report. Since the DSM-III, DID has been attributed to trauma, in statements which express probability, not certainty. Science is never about certainty, but rather about degrees of probability. The consistent statement of the DSM is that DID is most likely caused by childhood trauma. The DSM does make explicit statements. It is mainstream because it is the professional association for the topic. Again, this is obvious. There is no conflict here. The expert consensus statement clearly explains the mainstream expert consensus on DID. There are a number of criticisms of it, as there are of the DSM, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the US Constitution, UN Charter, ad infinitum. To assert that there is no consensus because there is ] is to misunderstand the nature of the word. When I consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged), it is clear that current usage allows "consensus" to mean a number of things, and there is conflict (lack of consensus) as to which meaning is preferred. It can mean unanimity. It can also mean majority. The central thrust of the definition given is "general agreement" or "collective opinion". You can lean on which ever flavor of the cited usages support your POV, can you not?

Expert consensus statement on Dissociative Identity Disorder - 2011

Here is what the expert consensus has expressed in a review and is the current guidelines and recommendations for treating DID. This 74 page long document was authored by an overwhelming number of experts on DID.

The expert consensus statement about the SCM (watching TV, reading books causes DID - like you watch a movie about a psychopath and you will become one because you think it's cool or something) presented in the review says of the SCM that: ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124)pdf file

On the otherhand, the expert consensus, as reported in the 2011, 74 page review says that they accept 3 models of etiology. (On the WP page these 3 models are all thrown on the page as one and confused and muddled, and then all contrasted against the SCM as if it has equal expert support, when in fact it has none. (other than a little here and there from those who are not experts in DID.) (p.123-124) pdf file

Tylas,

Let me see if I can explain this. You keep citing the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation as "the experts". As far as the other POV is concerned, that's "International Society for the Purpose of Proving that DID is Exclusively Caused by Trauma, No Matter What the Facts Might Be". They publish a journal, Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, written by and for people who have already decided that DID is always caused by trauma. It might as well be called Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds, So Don't Even Bother Talking about Other Ideas.

Asking these people what causes DID is like asking an Atkins fanatic whether you should eat a low-fat diet. The die-hard Atkins folks aren't going to give you a careful, balanced argument and consider your particular situation. They're going to tell you that low-fat diets are poisonous and that there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support it. They've already made up their minds, surrounded themselves with like-minded people, and they're not interested in anyone who disagrees with them.

The real scientific consensus is not found at any Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds—neither in the Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds And It's All Trauma nor in the Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds And It's Never Trauma. The real scientific consensus is found in the DSM, in major psychiatric textbooks, and in journals that are not sponsored by one faction in a controversy.

So you keep saying "the expert consensus" says this or that. Here's what I'm telling you: "the expert consensus" is not saying that. The experts who happen to hold one POV are saying that. The experts who happen to hold a different POV are saying something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again WAID - nice to see you, but talk about ] - ouch. This is interesting since you are not even involved on the DID page and such a quick reply - interesting - I am flattered. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but our opinions are irrelevant. The paper I cited is the expert consensus - that of the experts on DID - period. Mine, yours and or anyone's opinion other than the expert consensus does not matter. Tanya~(t) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your user talk page, like about two hundred other ones, is on my watchlist. Presumably I left you a message about something a while ago.

Can you produce an independent reliable source that says that this Society for One POV is actually "the expert consensus", and that anyone outside the ISSTD is not an expert on the subject? So far as I can tell, the only person saying that the ISSTD is sole source for "the experts" is you, and editors are not reliable sources in Misplaced Pages's terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no research what-so-ever to back up the SCM - nothing at all. It is simply opinion. Top researchers do not need to be members of the ISSTD to be part of the expert consensus.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 21:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See section below - "There is an expert consensus, and it's been published. (p.123)" for reply please. Tanya (t) 02:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Expert consensus on DID

Below are quotes from the 2011 expert consensus on DID. It is not necessary for anyone to read or understand them - but it is necessary for everyone to understand that this is the consensus of the top experts on DID - and if I understand WP, this is what should be presented on the WP DID page. The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is NO actual research on the SCM. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID reports that there is no actual research for the SCM. With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124) Tanya~talk page 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert consensus model I

• "...alternate identities result from the inability of many traumatized children to develop a unified sense of self that is maintained across various behavioral states, particularly if the traumatic exposure first occurs before the age of 5. These difficulties often occur in the context of relational or attachment disruption that may precede and set the stage for abuse and the development of dissociative coping." "Fragmentation and encapsulation of traumatic experiences may serve to protect relationships with important (though inadequate or abusive) caregivers and allow for more normal maturation in other developmental areas, such as intellectual, interpersonal, and artistic endeavors. In this way, early life dissociation may serve as a type of developmental resiliency factor despite the severe psychiatric disturbances that characterize DID patients." "Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their effects on the child’s overall development. "...disturbed caregiver–child attachments and parenting further disrupt the child’s ability to integrate experiences" Secondary structuring of these discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence, and adulthood." (p.122-123) pdf file

Expert consensus model II

• ...posits that the development of DID requires the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c)secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and needing to find his or her own ways of moderating distress. The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators, significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme withdrawal into fantasy, among others." (p.122-123) pdf file

Expert consensus model III

• "This theory suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense. Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in response to life threat, such as fight/flight, not to the psychodynamic notion of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional emotional parts of the personality." (p.123) pdf file

Summary from the paper

• "In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise from a previously mature, unified mind or “core personality” that becomes shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond) during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities. (p.123) pdf file Tanya~talk page 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus on Dissociative Identity Disorder, and it's been published. (p.123)

Everyone please understand beyond this point - it is pure mud. We are getting away from the topic, and I hate to contribute to that ], but here is my reply to WAID anyway.

The journal is published by the international professional society for research on and treatment of dissociative disorders. There is certainly disagreement in that group, but there is also a consensus, and it's been published. (p.123) pdf file Everyone of any significance in the field - who actually does research and/or treatment of dissociative disorders including DID, is a member and/or uses the publications of the ISSTD. The experts are the actual expert clinicians and researchers who write on and study DID - and they are all members of the ISSTD - Ross, Dell, Kluft, Putnam, Steele, van der Hart, Nijenhuis, etc.

Having published a dissenting POV does not make you an expert. The dissenters have opinions. The experts have data. It's that simple. Clearly I have scholarly support for my position, whereas your support could be used to lift a large balloon. Is there a professional society for those who hold beliefs that have no empirical support whatsoever? If so, give it's name.

All editions of the DSM since the MPD/DID diagnosis first appears in the DSM have said what the DSM-III-R says, one way or another: "...in nearly all cases, the disorder has been preceded by abuse (often sexual) or another form of severe emotional trauma in childhood." (p. 271) That position has never been deviated from, and the DSM-5 appears highly likely to take exactly the same position. If that isn't consensus to you, then you fail to grasp the meaning of the word. Tanya~(t) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoseizures - PNES (Common in Dissociative Identity Disorder)

I ran across this and thought some of you might be interested. This is what a pseudoseizure (PNES) looks like - they clearly are not a neurological event, as there is too much variation, and the pattern is wrong. It will probably be listed in the DSM 5 as: "With prominent non-epileptic seizures and/or other sensory-motor (functional neurologic) symptoms" http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1184694-clinical

Peer review for Dissociative Identity Disorder

Link to the Peer Review

Those of you watching, this morning Mathew has again entered the debate as can be seen on the . Even with all the evidence I have presented he has still stated that "we are polarized 2:1 with one editor insisting that International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) as "the experts" and their journal Journal of Trauma and Dissociation and their Guidelines as the only correct source."

What I have actually said is that beyond the expert consensus I presented of the ISSTD, please note that all editions of the DSM since the MPD/DID diagnosis first appears in the DSM have said what the DSM-III-R says, one way or another: "...in nearly all cases, the disorder has been preceded by abuse (often sexual) or another form of severe emotional trauma in childhood." (p. 271) That position has never been deviated from, and the DSM-5 appears highly likely to take exactly the same position. That is consensus. Beyond this, the expert consensus is that there is no actual research on the sociocognitive method. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID reports that there is no actual research for the SCM. With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. (p.123-124)pdf file How much more clear can it get that that! There is an expert consensus of the causes of DID. Editors personal opinions do not matter. Only the expert consensus which is described by the DSM and the 2011 Treatment Guidelines. Tanya (t) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Preceded by" is not the same as "caused by". That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. The DSM language does not reject the idea that DID is the result of some abused people having the terrible misfortune of getting an incompetent therapist when they seek therapy for their abuse. "Preceded by abuse or trauma" could mean "preceded by abuse or trauma, but caused by a bad therapist".
• What I'm looking for is a reliable source that (1) has zero connection to ISSTD and (2) says that ISSTD's guidelines are the expert consensus. So far what you've given me is "some Misplaced Pages editor says ISSTD is the experts". I want a properly published, independent reliable source that says ISSTD is the experts. Are you aware of any such published source? It should use words like "ISSTD, of which I am not a member, is the acknowledged expert source for DID", or words more or less to that effect. The source should not be you; it should be a scholar or other relevant professional. For example, this journal article says that the stroke guidelines are widely supported but the GI bleeding guidelines are not, and it is written by someone who didn't have a hand in writing any of the guidelines. Do you think you can find such a source for ISSTD's guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The DSM and Dissociative Identity Disorder

The DSM-V isn't out yet, but the DSM-IV-TR says, and I quote, "Individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder frequently report having experienced severe physical and sexual abuse, especially during childhood. Controversy surrounds the accuracy of such reports, because childhood memories may be subject to distortion and some individuals with this disorder are highly hypnotizable and especially vulnerable to suggestive influences" and goes on to mention caveats of objective evidence and the motivation of abusers to deny or distort their own behaviour. So selecting DSM-III rather than IV-TR, and failing to note DSM-IV-TR's rather important qualifications, seems to over-simplify the situation right now. I realize you are unlikely to change your mind over a point like this, a point I've already made, but for any peer reviewers who might read this, it seems noteworthy at least. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU - This is distorted. I gave you the DSM-III to point out the longevity of the acceptance of the traumagenic model as the principal cause of DID. The DSM-III quote has a specific purpose, and was not meant to be a summary of the situation. Any suggestion of that sort is a "strawman. This whole matter is well taken up on the DSM-5's requested review paper. The DSM (IV TR) does take a stand, but one qualified by some reasonable cautions. That stand has been consistent since the DSM-III. Nothing in science is "resolved", but to the probabilistic nature of all generalizations, however, the traumagenic position has definitely been accepted as the consensus etiological model since the DSM-III. To expect an "unquestionable" position is absurd. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Remembering childhood has nothing to do with having DID, the etiology of DID or even treating DID. To treat DID it does not matter if the memories are real or not, just that what is stuck in the mind is processed. None of this has anything to do with false memories and I could care less about any false memory debate. Perhaps if you would understand this you would quit putting up such a battle. Yeah, the DSM 5 is not out quite yet, but will be soon. I refer to the DSM III just because I have a printed copy, so it's easier. I will prepare a reply to this, again, since we seem to have to rehash it over and over again. I don't believe there is anything that you will ever accept other than the minority/fringe POV Sir. That saddens me, but I will at least reply for others that are reading. Also few with DID want to remember trauma memories either! It's just not the same as the whole repressed memory battle of the 80's and 90's. Most with DID just want to heal - not remember! Tanya ((✫♫♥)) 02:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You said "it does not matter if the memories are real or not". Do you mean that? If all the memories of abuse are false, then there was no actual abuse. If there was no actual abuse, then how could that non-existent abuse have harmed the person or caused DID?

I understand that the act of imagining something could cause a problem. Children do this all the time when they imagine monsters under the bed. But that problem would properly be blamed on the imagination, not on whatever is imagined. An inability to sleep because of fears about monsters should be blamed on imagining the monsters, not on the non-existent monsters.

Similarly, in such instances, it would be logical to blame DID on imagining abuse, not on the non-existent abuse (assuming, of course, that there wasn't actually any abuse).

As you say above, it might not matter for treatment, but you are wrong in asserting that it does not matter for determining the cause (etiology). A person who was never abused cannot have a disease caused by abuse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please quit twisting words around, it's not polite. What I said is that a person with DID does not have to remember their trauma accurately to heal. It does not matter to the process of healing! Whatever trauma is there in their mind does need to be processed however. I am not going to get into a POV debate with you. I simply state the expert consensus - not my POV. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The other incorrect point you make is saying "A person who was never abused cannot have a disease caused by abuse." The expert consensus is that DID is not always caused by abuse. It's also caused by things such as loosing a primary caregiver, an accident, childhood hospitalization. It certainly does not say that these children got it from watching a certain show from the 1970's or reading a certain book.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One last point to WAID - If you want to debate this, then go and debate with the brilliant men and women who study this. I am not an expert on DID - few are, but those few are who you want to discuss this with. I simply report the consensus they report. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WAID - All psychologists receive basically the same training in how memory works. They all know it is not perfectly reliable. They all know that it can be implanted, and tell entirely fictitious stories. But to say that is not to say that it typically is, or that there is any evidence that any significant number of trauma victims possess such illusory memory. Competent therapists all know that the question of the accuracy of client memory is inappropriate in psychotherapy. It is a non-issue. Ross covers this well in his 2009 book, and he's not the only one who's written about this. What is striking is that virtually all DID victims tell stories of childhood abuse, and that this has been consistently true from the beginning of the consideration of the diagnosis. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the experts on DID

As a courtesy, here is a list to start with: 2011 REVISED Adult Guidelines Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 guidelines written by top people in the field of DID: Chu, Dell, van der Hart, Cardena, Barach, Somer, Loewenstein, Brand, Golston, Courtois, Bowman, Classen, Dorahy, Sar, Gelinas, Fine, Paulsen, Kluft, Dalenbert, Jacobson-Ley, Nijenhuis, Boon, Chefetz, Middleton, Ross, Howell, Goodwin, Coons, Frankel, Steele, Gold, Gast, Young and Twomby.

Members of the Standards of Practice Committee were Peter M. Barach, PhD (Chair), Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, George Ganaway, MD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Sally Hill, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Richard J. Loewenstein, MD, Rosalinda O’Neill, MA, Jean Olson, MSN, Joanne Parks, MD, Gary Peterson, MD, and Moshe Torem, MD.

Members of the 2005 Guidelines DSM Revision Task Force included James A. Chu, MD (Chair), Richard Loewenstein, MD, Paul F. Dell, PhD, Peter M. Barach, PhD, Eli Somer, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Denise J. Gelinas, PhD, Onno van der Hart, PhD, Constance J. Dalenberg, PhD, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, PhD, Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Suzette Boon, PhD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Mindy Jacobson, ATR, Colin A. Ross, MD, Vedat ¸Sar, MD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, A. Steven Frankel, PhD, Philip M. Coons, MD, Christine A. Courtois, PhD, Steven N. Gold, PhD, and Elizabeth Howell, PhD.

Members of the 2010 Guidelines Task Force included James A. Chu, MD (Chair), Paul F. Dell, PhD, Onno van der Hart, PhD, Etzel Cardeña, PhD, Peter M. Barach, PhD, Eli Somer, PhD, Richard J. Loewenstein, MD, Bethany Brand, PhD, Joan C. Golston, DCSW, LICSW, Christine A. Courtois, PhD, Elizabeth S. Bowman, MD, Catherine Classen, PhD, Martin Dorahy, PhD, Vedat ¸Sar, MD, Denise J. Gelinas, PhD, Catherine G. Fine, PhD, Sandra Paulsen, PhD, Richard P. Kluft, MD, Constance J. Dalenberg, PhD, Mindy Jacobson-Levy, ATR, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, PhD, Suzette Boon, PhD, Richard A. Chefetz, MD, Warwick Middleton, MD, Colin A. Ross, MD, Elizabeth Howell, PhD, Jean Goodwin, MD, Philip M. Coons, MD, A. Steven Frankel, PhD, Kathy Steele, MN, CS, Steven N. Gold, PhD, Ursula Gast, MD, Linda M. Young, MD, and Joanne Twombly, MSW, LICSW.

Dissociative Identity Disorder basics

Again: You keep saying that these are the widely accepted experts. I'm willing to believe that, but I need something more than some random person on the Internet saying so. Do you, or don't you, have an actual WP:Independent source that says these are the experts and their guidelines are the ones that everyone agrees to use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WAID - We have to assume a basic familiarity with the field to argue this point. If you read the literature at all you know Kluft, Dell, Putnam, Howell, Steele, van der Hart, et al., not to mention Siegel and Schore are widely published in peer review books and academic press books. This is basic, and it's not my job to teach you this. Please, stop asking me for an independent source for the proposition that the earth is flat. You are expected to know this. This is an obvious ploy, that is obstructive and non-productive. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 16:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not how Misplaced Pages works. If you want to say that they're the experts, "you're just supposed to know this" is insufficient. Asking for a source is not a ploy; it's a requirement of our WP:NOR policy.

So based on what we can actually prove in independent sources, this group is one point of view on DID. They are probably the most significant view, but we don't seem to have have any high-quality independent sources that say "they're the experts" or "they're right" or "they're the only ones you should trust".

So—this being the English Misplaced Pages, not the real world—you have to write the article from that standpoint. I, too, can say, "This is basic, and it's not my job to teach you this", but you're apparently not going to figure out how Misplaced Pages works if no one teaches you how Misplaced Pages works, so I'm at least trying:

Unless and until you can produce an good independent source that says the Journal of One POV is better/more widely accepted (by everyone, not just a small subset of professionals) than the Journal of the Other POV, then you have to treat both of these main conceptions of DID as being potentially accurate and worth respect in the article. You don't get to say "I just know that the Society For My Favorite POV is right" (and, importantly, neither does any editor who "just knows" that the other POV is right). You need to WP:Write for the enemy and make sure that the article fully, accurately, and properly reflects their POV. If you won't or can't do that, then I can suggest other wikis that might be a better match for you, but this is the requirement for articles at this wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WAID - Please offer specific citations to back up your assertions. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Review: Abuse alone is not, in fact, predictive of DID (disorganized attachment)

Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.

"The incidence of dissociative identity disorder (DID) is strongly correlated with exposure to serious physical and sexual abuse. Although studies of more than 1,000 DID sufferers indicate that severe child abuse is a predisposing factor in 95% to 98% of cases (B. Braun, 1988), abuse alone is not, in fact, predictive of DID. Disorganized/disoriented attachment style and the absence of social and familial support, in combination with abuse history, best predict DID. Individuals who are securely attached are less likely to develop serious psychopathology in the event of abuse and are more likely to build a strong extrafamilial system of support--also a protective factor against psychopathology. Recognition of the significance of secure attachment and familial and social support as protective factors against the development of DID suggests social intervention as an important area of research to mitigate the psychological consequences of insecure attachment, social disconnection, and abuse."

What it's saying of course, is that the effect size (correlation-squared, or the amount of dependent variable variance accounted for by the independent variable - abuse is too low, which usually means that we don't have all the variables involved, or enough of them. They show that in a wide range of situations, when there is attachment, and any real degree of family support, all sorts of major stressers seem to be significantly damped. This is not news, but it is in a recent review.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Learn from a MASTER! Dr. Dan Siegel's Mindsight Lecture Series: The Latest Science about the Mind, the Brain and Relationships I so wish I could go to this, but just spreading the date so those that can attend will. October 12, 2012 - June 7, 2013 in Santa Monica, CA CE Credits Topics: Lecture 1: Mindsight in Politics Lectures 2 & 3: Practical Applications: Strengthening the Mind Lecture 4: The Teen Brain Lecture 5: Connecting to our Parents Across the Lifespan Lecture 6: Trauma and Attachment Lecture 7: Thriving with Uncertainty in Life Lecture 8: Mindsight at Work Lecture 9: Mindsight in the Media Lecture 10: How Relationships Promote Health and Happiness