Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 5

message: It seems to be lifted entirely from the Merck Manual.  Is that kosher?  That is copyrighted material.  I'm new, so I'm still figuring out what's what.  P L Logan 03:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re: "potential causes" section

message: The term "Alter" is used without being defined. It is my perception that 'Alter' is a slang or hip term, but it is currently being used as if 'Alter' is official mental health terminology. Recommend that it not be use without first clarifying its usage and under what context is it normally used. I suspect it is not an official term used in the DSM, more likely limited to personal identification or within small circle of individuals.  
Example: Through having several alters the host personality is living through healthy alters, aggressive alters, and often alters that are children.
:The term has been used for decades by mental health professionals such as Colin Ross, Ralph Allison, Frank Putnam and Richard Kluft in reports on multiple personality. It probably originated with William McDougall's writings on multiplicity where he called the people in a multiple group "alternating personalities". See http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/mcdougall/alternating.htm . It may have been Cornelia Wilbur who shortened it to "alter". It's also commonly used in the publications of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation. <spammed link removed>  Its use in the article is thus perfectly acceptable. Slang or hip terms would include things like "headmates". --Bluejay Young 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I been able to determine, "alter" is a slang term for "Alternate personality" and it is not used in the DSM. The use of slang terms reduces the legitimacy of what is written. In general slang\hip terms are used by insiders and\or those who are promoting an agenda or theory. In this particular case using "Alternate personality" makes the wiki information less confusing, and eliminates the baggage that slang terms brings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.161.249.177 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's a shortened form of alter ego, i.e. simply "other" in Latin? — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 09:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of the term "Alter" 

message: Is there any data about applying NLP psychotherapy to DID/MPD patients? Eli the Barrow-boy 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found some anecdotal evidence from various therapists who used NLP about their treatment of DID/MPD with NLP approach. Also, DID/MPD is mentioned in context of Milton Erickson. If any one could expand this side, it would be useful. Eli the Barrow-boy 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP and DID/MPD 

message: As currently written, this article is a travesty... It looks like it was written by a hardcore pro-multiple personality advocate. It didn't used to be this biased at all. I think reverting back to an old version is far preferable than trying to salvage hat has become a horribly biased and therefore useless article. 68.190.89.38 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Is there a better term than "reptilian complex"?  Can that whole paragraph be moved to someplace more relevant, perhaps even the top?  It probably answers a lot of questions, especially for people who are personally interested rather than professionally. --Kipperoo 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for the layperson 

message: Editors at Multiple personality controversy disagree as to whether that article should be merged back into Dissociative identity disorder, from whence it came. (The split was done by Zeraeph in February 2006, please see Talk:Multiple personality controversy#External links.) Only four people are actively discussing the issue. Two of us are in favor of a merge (Bishonen and DreamGuy), one  is against (Doczilla), and one has no strong feelings either way (Sethrenn). Obviously such small numbers are no kind of proper consensus. I have filed a request for comment, to get more eyeballs, and I ask everybody here to please come to Talk:Multiple personality controversy and discuss the issue there. Oh, and I urge people to avoid fragmenting the discussion by conducting some of it here at Talk: Dissociative identity disorder. Let's keep it all in one place, if possible. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggested between [[Multiple personality controversy]] and [[Dissociative identity disorder]]

message: The information is NOT properly sourced. You can't just make up a study, it needs to be backed up properly with references. If you can find references, please put them on, but if not then stop adding the information Gmelin 07:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is sourced, it's encapsulated by the citation at the end of the paragraph Gmelin 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That references redirects http://www.merck.com/mmpe/index.html here], to the front page of a journal, hardly a proper source Gmelin 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could be bothered looking for it you'd find it's in the article, please stop blanking large chunks of the article Gmelin 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if you can find the article in the journal readd the information, if not then stop adding unsourced information to wikipedia Gmelin 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith when editting wikipedia, the user who added the information has obviously not drawn it from the top of his head, the redirect is probably a technical issue that has yet to be resolved Gmelin 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know for a fact that the information which has been added to the article is factually incorrect, it is unsourced and could easily be the product of someone's imagination. Please stop adding it until a proper source is found, and please bear in mind that you have breached 3RR Gmelin 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again the source is contained within the journal, if you could be bothered looking for it. Please stop vandalising pages Gmelin 07:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems anything can be said if linked to the front page of a journal, moron Gmelin 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in Potential causes of dissociative identity disorder

message: Editors, I am writing to suggest that a mention of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised(SCID-D-R) be mentioned in the article as well as some mention of Dr. Marlene Steinberg's work in developing it as a tool now used to diagnose Dissociative Identity Disorder as well as other dissociative disorders.  However, I would certainly understand if it is determined that this suggestion would be better covered in an article covering all of the dissociative disorders.  My suggestion is merely to add more information to an article that I believe already does a good job of educating readers about DID.  Thank you for considering my suggestion. Listening1 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Write it. --DashaKat 11:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Mention of the SCID-D-R and its Development by Dr. Marlene Steinberg 

message: I have opened an arbitration request on DreamGuy.  Anyone who would like to contribute (in a positive, negative or neutral vein) can do so at WP:RFAR under DreamGuy. --DashaKat 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false arbitration request, as no steps were taken to resolve any conflict (in fact his recent edits here are specifically to ignore how the conflict had already been resolved here and revert to a POV-pushing one added by a suspicious first time editor (likely a sockpuppet) and Empacher (clearly from his edits merely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet). After hurling insults at me on my talk page and filing a nonsense report he wants to try to trick people here into thinking that because he made the accusation that my view should be ignored so he can bully his way into having his POV-pushing version remain. DreamGuy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The decision to reject arbitration was unanimous, by the way. So attempting to intimidate others by filing false claims won't get you anywhere. DreamGuy 06:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration re: [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 

message: The paragraph about False Memory Syndrome in the Defining the constroversy section is balatantly POV:
<< These parents banded together in an effort to defend themselves by theorizing a new syndrome, the "False Memory Syndrome (FMS)," that asserts therapists somehow suggested abuse and dissociation to their patient (who was usually the adult child accusing her/his parent of abuse). Although there is no evidence whatsoever that FMS is an actual syndrome or condition, >>
It also contradicts both the article on False Memory and common sense, e.g., are people's recovered memories of alien abductions also real?
:No kidding.  But if one attempts to make ANY sort of edits, it will be reverted by an editor who has made it his business to "take control" of this article.  Your intention is warranted, your efforts, I'm afraid, will be futile. --DashaKat 11:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Memory Syndrome (FMS)

message: ::Ok, "...think of Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) as an extreme form of sleep-walking..." I take it from this that the notion of multiple personalities within the same body, like say Ray and Carl, would never come to blows with one another, Ray attempting to pound upon Carl, never realizing that the same body they both occupy is the one taking the abuse. Still this is a frequent portrayel of multiple personalities in the contemporary literature canon and I think this article should either corroborate that this phenomenon has a basis in reality or dismiss it saying its basis is completely fictional as those portrayels are frequent enough in mainstream culture, not just literature such as the movie Fight Club, which also was first a book. So is this behavior truth or myth? Shouldn't it be part of this article to dispell or confirm?
66.63.67.240 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, interesting point. There is a section in the article "In popular culture".  Why don't you put together a paragraph and insert it there? If possible, try to give sources for your information. By the way, I have reinstated the heading "Missing info". I am sure you were trying to be helpful, but talk pages should not be changed, only added to. If someone is following this heading, they will think it has been archived if they can't find it in the contents. As a way round what you were trying to do, I have added a subheading with your header.--CloudSurfer 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fight club syndrome: facade or factual?

message: * When I am logged in at this discussion page, the top right-hand corner sometimes incorrectly displays 'Sign in / create account' when it should actually display 'log out', as I am logged in. However, when previewing a comment, it displays my username, which confirms I am logged in. And after posting my comment, my username is posted along with my text. I'm wondering whether to report this problem, that there might be something wrong with 'Sign in / create account' and 'log out' signs, in the top right-hand corner of this page, in case it gets worse. Is anyone else experience this, or is it just me?
* Also, I noticed there is a delay in displaying my contributions in both the article and discussion pages, is this usual? I noticed some of my previous contributions to the article page sometimes took up to three days to appear.
--Standardname 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst logged in at discussion page Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, does any other editor get automatically logged out, at times? --Standardname 02:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page displays 'Sign in / create account' when you'd expect it to display 'log out'

message: The text below was put into my UserTalk.  Since it is about my edits here I have copied it here:
:CloudSurfer, you suddenly turn up at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, and suggest removing text supporting the disorder Dissociative identity disorder, and suggest adding more controversial text;
:* do you agree to refrain from removing ANY further text from article Dissociative identity disorder, that supports the disorder Dissociative identity disorder? DreamGuy has removed enough sourced text that supports Dissociative identity disorder;
:* do you agree to refrain from adding ANY more controversial text to article Dissociative identity disorder? DreamGuy reinstated enough controversial text.
:--Standardname 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were much too polite to someone who clearly wants to skew the article to his own viewpoint instead of treating the topic fairly. If anything the current edits still underplay the controversy, as all through the article it discusses it like it's real instead of saying what source says what about it, so that it'sclear that it's their opinion and not fact. DreamGuy 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being civil is not only good manners and WP policy but the best way to achieve a satisfactory outcome. --CloudSurfer 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to CloudSurfer from StandardName

message: I have archived every post I could find that did not have a post later than 31Dec2006. A search for 2007 returns only the page update date. My apologies if I have archived undated posts that are more recent. These discussions are now in Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder/Archive_2006-2. --CloudSurfer 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Below are my personal views on the status of the current article. Have written some of the article, I feel a bit close to those sections to comment.
Introduction: The first paragraph gives a summary of the DSM-IV criteria which is given later under that heading.  This seems excessive information for the introduction.  The third paragraph mentions other disorders where dissociation occurs.  This seems unnecessary in the introduction which is about DID, not dissociation.
Defining the controversy: Where is the citation to back up, "One of the primary reasons for the ongoing recategorization of this condition is that there were once so few documented cases (research in 1944 showed only 76[10]) of what was once referred to as multiple personality."  Sure there is evidence that there has been a surge of cases but where is the evidence that this is the "the primary reasons for the ongoing recategorization"?  The second sentence is fine (Dissociation is recognised …).  The third sentence is goobledegook and the original source used to justify it does not mention this and in fact makes no mention of either DID or MPD.
The DSM re-dress:  The first three sentences are fine.  "The controversial nature of the dissociation hypothesis is shown quite clearly by the manner in which the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has addressed, and re-dressed, the categorization over the years." Where are the citations to support this statement?  It seems heavy handed and POV to me.  There is citational support for a much less inflamatory reason for the name change from MPD to DID.  The second paragraph is a simple documentation of what happened and is OK.
The MPD/DID epidemic in North America: Since I wrote this it is difficult to comment on it.  There could be more put into this section.
Other positions: I am not happy with the clarity of, "Who should primarily define the experience, therapists, or those who believe that they have multiple personalities."  Somehow the first comma seems inadequate to separate the ideas and make the sentence clear.
Defining the terms:
Dissociation:  This is a wooly section and I believe it needs a total rewrite.  I have started to look at references for this process.
Alter:  Having written this, I am happy with it.
Symptoms: This is a huge list that could be grouped  and some sense made of it all.  However, the big question is, are these just an expression of the human condition rather than specific to DID?   The sentence, " Again, doctors must be careful not to assume that a client has MPD or DID simply because they exhibit some or all of these symptoms. For example, someone may have severe PTSD and self mutilate with suicidal ideas, which are two of the symptoms listed above, but in order for DID to be diagnosed, there must be two or more distinctly present personalities." is mistargeted as the article is written for an encyclopaedia reader, not doctors.  It also goes over a subject, diagnosis using the DSM criteria, which would be better addressed under that heading, if at all.  The final paragraph is a restatement of the diagnostic criterion of amnesia but with more examples.  If it is going to be mentioned then it needs to be introduced linked to the word "amnesia".
Causes/etiology: I believe this should be divided into a sceptic's view of causes and a believer's veiw of causes.  Further down the paragraph, stats from "North American studies" are given with no citation!  War is attributed as a major cause in some cultures.  Which cultures and where's the citation?  Much of this section is attributed to the Merck Manual.  There are better sources of information!  I believe it needs a total rewrite.
Diagnosis: I think this section is ok.  The screening and diagnostic instruments section needs to have a caution put into it that the screens are based on the assumption of the validity of the diagnosis and do not, of themselves, validate the diagnosis.  I have a reference for this statement.
Pathophysiology:  Having written this, I think it's fine. J
Treatment/management: I have not delved into the literature on this to see if what is being said reflects current practices.  However, it seem correct.  The last paragraph appears to have been added by a totally different author and needs to be properly referrenced and some grammar fixed.
Prognosis: This section seems OK although a copyedit would be appropriate.
Prevention/screening: Again, having written it, I think it's fine.
Epidemiology:  Having written it, I think it's fine, but perhaps it could have a narrative summary appended.
History:  Having written this, I am largely happy with it, but I do wonder how accessible it is to the average encyclopaedia reader.  The problem is, explaining it more would make it considerably larger unless some information, most of which I think is relevant, was discarded.  
Social impact  and Notable cases: These two are MEDMOS headings and there is nothing in either at present and the headings are not in the main article.
In popular culture:  Not enough in here.
OK, that's my summary of the current article with some suggestions of what needs doing. --CloudSurfer 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article status

message: I have replaced the following text:
Dissociation is defined as a complex mental process that provides a coping mechanism for individuals confronting painful and/or traumatic situations. It is characterized by a disintegration of the ego. Ego integration, or more properly ego (core personality) integrity, can be defined as a person's ability to successfully incorporate external events or social experiences into their perception, and to then present themselves consistently across those events or social situations. A person unable to do this successfully can experience emotional dysregulationDissociation FAQs ( International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, www.isst-d.org ), as well as a potential collapse of ego integrity. In other words, this state of emotional dysregulation is, in some cases, so intense that it can precipitate ego dis-integration, or what, in extreme cases, has come to be referred to diagnostically as dissociation.Background to Dissociation ( The Pottergate Centre for Dissociation & Trauma )
Dissociation describes a collapse in ego integrity so profound that the personality is considered to break apart. For this reason, dissocation is often referred to as splitting or altering. Less profound presentations of this condition are often referred to clinically as disorganization or decompensation. The difference between a psychotic break and a dissociation, or dissociative break, is that, while someone who is experiencing a dissociation is technically pulling away from a situation that he or she cannot manage, some part of the person remains connected to reality. 
Because the person suffering a dissociation does not completely disengage from reality, she or he may appear to have multiple personalities to deal with different situations. When an alter cannot cope with stress, the consciousness of the person is believed to be given over to another personality to eliminate the trigger or pressure causing the stress.Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults ( James A. Chu, MD, 2005 )
Dissociation is not sociopathic or compulsive. The biological stress caused by the original trauma is relieved by partially shunting the emotional response, which causes the reptilian complex to learn to dissociate reactively. This makes recovery from DID a matter of re-training the reptilian complex rather than a function of the more social neo-cortex.   Because the trigger is biological stress rather than specific external events, the exact causes of later reactive dissociation are difficult to trace to events.
With:
Dissociation at its simplest means that "two or more mental processes or contents are not associated or integrated." This definition assumes that these elements should normally be associated or integrated in conscious awareness, memory, or identity.Cardeña E. "The domain of dissociation" In Clinical And Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Lynn S. Rhue J. New York: Guilford, 1994. .
The DSM-IV characterizes dissociation as "disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment" while the ICD-10 defines it as "partial or complete loss of the normal integration between memories of the past, awareness of identity and immediate sensations, and control of bodily movements."
To dissociate is to sever the association of one thing from another. 
Multiple personalities occur when the identity of a person dissociates to the extent that they have separate existences with their own "identities, life histories, and enduring patterns of perceiving, thinking about and relating to the environment which is distinct from the habitual personality's mode of being in the world." Text
Given that it is about definitions, I have moved it above the section on defining the controversy.--CloudSurfer 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, some of what I took out could easily go into "Etiology", which is where it really belongs. --CloudSurfer 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining the terms

message: The history section is now written and included in the main article.  Given the quietness on these talk pages, and the fact that much of what is in the history section is a reporting of what happened, I have put it straight into the main article. --CloudSurfer 12:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Note: The Request for Comments link on this page from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_sports%2C_law%2C_and_sex refers to section "Edit Warring," however it appears that the controversy which additional editors could comment on is really spread throughout the article or at least throughout the talk page.  Would it be possible to collect all comments about controversial or disputed portions of the article, where third party RFC is sought, into a single section of the talk page?  (Or one section per key point or theme or area in dispute?)  It is quite confusing to try to figure out what items are still open as issues where existing editors would appreciate a third party perspective.  It would also be very helpful for advocates of all sides to consider how to be concise, courteous, and assume good faith all around, when advocating for a particular perspective about DID to be included in the article.  Thank you. VisitorTalk 09:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After an edit war a little while ago, this page has settled down again and has been stable for a while. My summary of the events is that one editor, with a strong "pro DID" view came to the page with a lot of references and wanted to use them to justify the validity of the diagnosis. This led to reversions of his/her attempts to include these once they reached a point where they were biasing the article. I came along and offered to mediate.  That led me to research the literature and use the references I found as a basis for rewriting several of the sections.  I have intended to return to the sections that are still patchy but I have been busy over the last week. Various minor edits and the page's current stability would suggest that people are generally happy with it as being NPOV at present. --CloudSurfer 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war and request for comments

message: The article states:
:This condition is not an equivalent for schizophrenia (DSM-IV Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders), as is a common misconception. The term schizophrenia comes from root words for "split mind," but refers more to a fracture in the normal functioning of the brain, than the personality. It makes people think they are two or more different people
It (in bold) refers to DID, not schizophrenia? If so, that should be made clearer, the "It" replaced with the name of the condition. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in wording