Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1

message: John Bowlby 
 
Bowlby's Study of Maternal deprivation	   
Aims: To investigate the effects of maternal deprivation on people. To see whether deliquents had suffered deprivation.	   
Procedures: Bowlby took two groups of 44 males. One group consisted solely of thieves, the other contained males that had committed other crimes (non-thieves). He asked them to state whether they had suffered maternal deprivation and for how long.	   
Findings: Bowlby found that 17 of the thieves had suffered a separation for 6 months or more before the age of 5 years. Only 2 of the non-thieves had suffered this.
14 of the thieves had affectionless psychopathy. 12 of these had been deprived.	   
Conclusion: Affectionless psychopaths show little concern ofr others and are unable to form relationships. Bowlby believed that this resulted from deprivation. the study appears to support the claim that maternal deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy.	   
Evaluation: The sample was NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the general population. 
The data collected was RETROSPECTIVE. This meant that bowlby was asking the participants to look back and recall separations. These memories may not be accurate.
Boiwlby designed and conducted the experiment himself. This may have lead to BIAS ANALYSIS of the results.
There was only a correlation between the two findings, and CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. It is also not possible to find the direction of causation.
This study appears to support Bowlby's claim, but it may also be said that it only shows that children who have been deprivaed are MORE LIKELY TO BECOME THIEVES than any other criminal.
miz opel
Remember that every investigation / experiment is theory-driven. Denying that is possibly much more harmful, than not sticking exactly to what is presently considered good experimental design. In my opinion J. Bowlby has done great work. Even if it is as you say, that the investigation resulted in finding that deprived children are more likely to become thieves, this is what I consider a valuable outcome. What are you expecting? - A single cause determining a persons character and behaviour, regardless of all other influences?  
Even Physics is dependent on probabilities not certainties, leave alone human behaviour. 84.166.80.157 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Someone seems to have the idea that if a book mentions Bowlby (correctly or incorrectly), then it qualifies to be in a Wikipedia bibliography.  I have deleted (for the second time) a vanity book which has been inserted in the bibliography, but is not a good reference on John Bowlby (or his work).  The other references seem appropriate and should remain.
I disagree and so have put the reference back.  The text is an edited text which describes a treatment methodology based on Attachment Theory and which relies on the work of Sir Bowlby.  Since the text was endorsed by Dr. Dan Siegel of the UCLA Medical School (and Sir Richard Bowlby, Sir John's son) it is not a vanity book and should remain.
Nonsense.  That it is a "treatment methodology" based on "Attachment Theory" doesn't mean it has anything to do with John Bowlby personally (which is what this article is supposed to be about).  (Indeed, your reference to "Sir Bowlby" displays an ignorance of British forms of address; moreover, it shows an ignorance about John Bowlby's biography -- he was never a knight or a baronet.)  Endorsement of a book, especially by someone like Sir Richard who has no credentials whatever in the field, doesn't make the tome any more relevant, and doesn't make the publisher less of a subsidy publisher (i.e., vanity press).  Putting this reference here, more so as the first item in the bibliography, is shameless self-promotion and degrades Wikipedia.  It should go.  I will keep deleting it as long as you keep adding it.  206.81.65.234 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: There is nothing truthful to be found in the account of "Use of Bowlby's Theory", but the author of that account insists that the topic be treated here, I will endeavor to make a thoughtful and truthful case. Wikipedia's readers of this article have the right to expect truthful material.  It has been suggested that this argument move elsewhere and leave this article for more pertinent discussion of John Bowlby; that has been rejected by the other side.  So, for the record:
1.  Theraplay and DDP are not evidence-based treatments by any legitimate definition of that term.
2.  Such "treatments" are coercive and abusive of children, and have been recognized as such by responsible professionals worldwide.
3.  The promoters of such therapies repeatedly display either ignorance of, or lack of acceptance of, long-established principles of child development.
4.  The promotion of such "therapies" on Wikipedia is little more than spam.
5.  The personal attacks on critics, appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies, reflect the paucity of valid arguments in favor of invented approaches such as DDP.
6.  While the existence of such approaches as DDP, Holding Therapy, etc., has to be acknowledged in this debate, they remain quite illegitimate and Wiki readers should be informed that controversy exists.
I have written an account which I think is more illuminating of the facts surrounding the contemporary use of "Bowlby's Theory".  I doubt anyone can find anything untrue or impertinent in what I've written.  Now we'll see if Arthur Becker-Weidman, or his sock puppets, have anything more to contribute than to engage in a simple revert war.
Sarner 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striving Toward Truth 

message: It is obvious that you are in league with the ACT group and another foil for Mercer based on the following.  The use of the term "sock-puppet" is the same language used by that fringe group in other posts and now Sarner is exposed as a "sock-puppet" for Mercer and ACT:
1. Your outrageous statement that there is "nothing truthful in the account of "Use of Bowlby's Theory","  All the citations and quotes are facts.  
2. There is ample evidence for the effectiveness of the Circle of Security Program, Theraplay, and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.  Why the ACT group refuses to see this is another symptom of their zealotry.
3. None of the programs listed are coercive by any standards.  All the programs cited meet APA, NASW, APSAC and various other standards.  
4. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Circle of Security, and the other legitimate programs listed are not "holding therapy," whatever that means.  
5. The description of legitimate treatments, such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Theraplay, Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray, Family Therapy, etc certainly belong in  Wilipedia as readers of an encyclopedia expect to be able to find facutal descriptions of a variety of people, events, theories, treatments, etc.  Again, your trying to censure these listings exposes you for what you are.  
Removing legitimate information is vandalism.  If you insist on engaging in vandalism I hope the monitors see this and chastise you accordingly.  I can see that your earlier attempts to have an open discussion and debate were false and deceitful.  I am sorry to see that, as I am sure all the others are.  I'd like to hear from Dr. Becker-Weidman, but I suppose he does not want to participate in your silly battles.
::I concur
MarkWood
:::Of course you do.  Where was the falseness or deceit?  Bet you can't point out any specifics.  I hope some Wiki monitors do take a look into all this.
:::Sarner 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lies and More Falsehoods

message: I have given reasons before why the section on "Use of Bowlby's Theory in Practice" is nothing more than advertising.  It also is wildly inaccurate, attempting to assert that certain putative therapies are acceptable application of attachment theory.
I am also on record as believing that the entire section is inappropriate for an article about John Bowlby, but the original editor (or his sock puppet) cannot agree with that.  Thus, I am left with the task of writing something better than what was better.
I have done so, showing where mainstream psychoanalysis (if not psychology) has taken the approach.  I have also treated the fringe, scientifically challenged alternative treatments more respectfully than they actually deserve, taking the trouble to point out succinctly where scientific researchers have found them wanting, and also why responsible clinicians avoid them.
As part of the effort, I also removed the linkspam and reduced the bibliography to just items that would lead Wiki users to useful sources on the subject of this article.
There is still much work to be done to correct the other parts of the article, but I am hoping there are other editors who are willing to ring in and do that work.
I am also attempting to follow the Wiki philosophy of attempting to reach consensus and to follow Wikiquette as much as I understand it.  Certainly my intention has not been to engage in an edit or "revert" war, but the other editor (I use that Wiki term here in reference to him only as a courtesy) has left me with little choice to do what I can to protect the integrity of the subject matter and of the Wikipedia itself.
Sarner 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for revert 

message: ACT and Mercer's "sock puppets," (to use a term you and others of ACT seem to like to use) strike again with lies and falshoods and attempts to censure balanced and truthful accounts.  What a shame for Wikipedia.  I cannot answer all of your ridiculous and false statements nor do I feel it necessary to defend Dr. Becker-Weidman or Dr. Huhges.  Dr. Hughes was recently on a well repected panel of presenter that included both Drs. Steele, Dr. Foshia, and several other well-respected and substantial reserchers and practitioners who recongized the work of Dr. Hughes.
Daniel J. Siegel, MD, Associate Clniical Professor, UCLA School fo Medicine, renowed researcher and author of The Developing Mind: The Neurobiology of Interpersonal Behavior recognized the value and legitimacy of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when he wrote, "An informative assemby of chapters by people working on the frontlines to help children create the attachments that will help them thrive.  Written from the point of view of what is practical and informed by new findings in science, the book will be of use to a wide variety of caregivers and professionals.  Here is a wealth of hard-won wisdom that will enrich the lives of many."
-----
Let's see, "...Accurancy [sic]...falshoods [sic]...censure [sic]...Huhges [sic]...well repected panel of presenter [sic]...recongized [sic]...Associate Clniical Professor [sic]...School fo Medicine [sic]...assemby [sic]..."  Lots of careful attention to detail there.
Has Dr. Marvin changed his name to Dr. Siegel?  (No doubt you know...you pay such close attention to name changes.)  You claimed that Dr. Marvin strongly endorses DDP.  When pressed for the evidence of that, you produce a jacket blurb by Dr. Siegel.  You can see the problem with that, can't you?  You made up the claim about Dr. Marvin, didn't you?
Of course you don't intend to defend anyone here.  You can't.  You're making it up as you go along.  And Dr. Hughes was on a panel with real people is supposed to be a testimony to the legitimacy and value of DDP?  This is the kind of reasoning one sees in junior high or middle school.
And you still haven't pointed out one single lie or falsehood in my version of the section in question.  Or even a misspelling, though I caught one and corrected it myself.
Give this up.  You aren't up to it.
Sarner 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for Revert for Accurancy

message: As a representative of ACT and Mercer Sarner's statements clearly represent a closed minded and biased view as an advocate of a fringe group.  He keeps the reference to Mercer as "relevant" while removing other references and links, just one example.  (See his silly and off-point comments above).  Too bad for Wiki.
:Mercer's book is at least about attachment, and she is a researcher.  But, I'm willing to remove it, along with the others.
:And to answer your other (biased and close-minded) charges, I admit to being biased in favor of science and reason and their application to understanding human behavior.  I also confess to being close-minded to those who argue with logical fallacies and reject the importance of truth and evidence in judging the appropriateness of treatments, especially for children.
:I have found the really close-minded people are those who reject reason and science, leaving others with no way to reasonably judge the truth or falsity of claims.
:The most ironic part of these exchanges is to call someone, as you have, or groups who are committed to science and evidence-based treatment to be "fringe".  Bowlby would be rolling in his grave.  That would be a same commentary on mental-health if such be fringe.  Of course, in reality, science and EBT are quite mainstream; making judgments about the sufficiency of evidence is part of the process.  Only those who can't pass the judgments of reality complain about "bias" and resort to name-calling.
:Sarner 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of Bias and and Closed Mindedness

message: Ignorance was showing here when Buffalo-area "editor" (aka Dr Art?) once more reverted  my attempts to improve this article by falsely claiming the improvements were:
a. the spamming version was being "censured" [sic].
b. the non-spamming improvements were by a fringe group.
The reversions to the spamming version have also been routinely eliminating attempts to improve the prose in the biographical sections and by working on the bibliographic information.
First, I have had no intention to censure the spamming version.  You can only censure people, and I had no intention of doing that, either.
Second, my improvements were done by me, not a group.
Third, dismissing my improvements because I am putatively "fringe" is specious and arrogant, as well as false.  It is not a legitimate basis for editing.
Fourth, eliminating all my editing through a revert -- and after only 2 minutes -- is knee-jerk and unconsensus-like.
Please do not revert to your spamming version anymore.  Please try to reach consensus by adding material you insist upon.  And because that material is likely to be controversial, please justify your additions, piece by piece, here on the talk page.  I will discuss it before improving what you add.  If you want to delete something already on the page, please discuss it here, so I can have an opportunity to justify my information.
Finally, it would be nice if you at least signed your contributions, at least as directed at the bottom of the edit page.  At least that would keep things from being confused as to authorship.  I'd ask for you to identify yourself by name, but its probably too much to expect, and I'm not sure I'd trust your self-identification.
Sarner 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if true, so what? Sarner 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming 

message: I've been using Wiki for a long time now...never bothered to set up a name as I only used Wiki to get information...never felt the need to edit or comment till now.  This Sarner person appears to be deleting information on this page because of some misguided notions.  If he is a spokesperson or member or connectetd with that ACT group, then, really, his contributions are just extremist nonsense.  I like the version of the other person and would encourage Sarner to either leave it alone or just add what Sarner thinks is missing.
:And, if I'm not connected with ACT, then my contributions may not be "extremist nonsense"?  What kind of reasoning is that?
:Since this Wood person, if that's his name, appears to be from LA, obviously s/he is not a direct sock-puppet of the Buffalo crowd, but obviously they are working together to keep the truth out of this article and spamming nonsense in it.  Were you asked to come riding to the rescue?  (Thinking it could keep Buffalo from violating the Three-Revert-Rule, I would guess.)
:The only thing new added was to revert my work, claiming to "repair" my "vandalism".  Even if I were stubborn and wrong (which I am not in the latter, though I may be the former), Wikipedia does not regard this as vandalism.  But the term has been repeatedly misused by the Buffalo/Williamsville crowd to try to mischaracterize my editing.
:If you really felt strongly enough that my "deletions" were "because of some misguided notions" to write here after doing your revert, you could have at least said what you thought those misguided notions were.  I think you were either just being rude, or just couldn't think of any defensible arguments.
:Sarner 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough already

message: You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact.
I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company.
MarkWood
::There is no point, MarkWood, in your trying to convince Sarner.  ACT is a fringe group of zealots comprised of a number of people, but particularily Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer.  You cannot argue with such people.  They have a biased and extremist agenda.  So, save your breath.
:::Marching orders from Williamsville.
Yes, I agree, there can be no discussion or reasoned debate with that group.  
PPeterson
You are right.  Sarner even denies credit for his own statements.  There is just no way to talk with those ACT people.  I remember hearing Dr. Marvin talk at a national conference and his glowing and positive statements regarding the work of Hughes and Becker-Weidman, not that Sarner would accept that.  So, PPeterson, you are right; debate with them is futile.
:Please leave the record here alone; the forum gets to speak for itself.  You don't sign your posts (when all you have to do is type in four tildes).  I get to do the same, especially when replying to unsigned ones.  I did it to make a point.  Of course, you now have made a second and third point for me.
:So you remember Dr. Marvin talking and giving "glowing and positive statements" about DDP?  What conference was that?  Would there be an audio version of that?  Give us something to confirm your statement.  If you don't, then the record will show that this is not evidence at all.  Personally, I will conclude you are putting words in his mouth.
:Futility, in this forum, is trying to reach consensus with the Williamsville Crowd and their fellow-travelers.
:Sarner 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Point in arguing

message: You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact.
I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company.MarkWood
::There is no point, MarkWood, in your trying to convince Sarner.  ACT is a fringe group of zealots comprised of a number of people, but particularily Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer.  You cannot argue with such people.  They have a biased and extremist agenda.  So, save your breath.
Yes, I agree, there can be no discussion or reasoned debate with that group.  
PPeterson
You are right.  Sarner even denies credit for his own statements.  There is just no way to talk with those ACT people.  I remember hearing Dr. Marvin talk at a national conference and his glowing and positive statements regarding the work of Hughes and Becker-Weidman, not that Sarner would accept that.  So, PPeterson, you are right; debate with them is futile.
:To the readers of this section, please see the above section to see responses to the above comments.  (Don't want to repeat them all here and make this huge talk page any longer)
You are both right...there is no way to convince Mercer and crew.  Mercer seems more circumspect now and has Sarner and Rose do the speaking.  I understand this may have something to do with letters to the dean of the college and other correspondance that have caused Mercer to be more careful, but to use other spokespersons.  PPeterson
:Since you claim to be so well informed on such matters, please answer these questions about what you've just said:
::1.  What evidence do you have that I or anyone else am a spokesperson for Mercer on this talk page or any other place?  Same for "Rose" (or Rosa, allowing for your atrocious spelling and proofreading)?
::2.  What evidence do you have that anyone named "Rose" (or Rosa) has ever made comments to this talk page, or any other Wiki talk page for that matter?
::3.  What evidence do you have the Mercer is being "circumspect"?
::4.  Have you seen any letter(s) from the dean of any college which directs "Mercer to be more careful" or to use spokespersons?  Do you have any evidence that letters to the dean of Prof. Mercer's college actually caused her to be "more careful" in her public utterances?
::5.  Why do you persist in attributing my signed commentary to other persons?
::6.  Are you now, or have you ever been, Arthur Becker-Weidman?  If not, who are you?
:Sarner 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Point in arguing II

message: Some importnat questions you've still not responded to:
1. Are you a member of ACT?
2. Isn't it true that you have a financial relationship and business relationship with Mercer adn Rosa?
3. Isn't it also true that you have a relationship with ACT?
4. Who is on the Board of ACT?
5. If ACT is not a fringe group and is recognized by mainstream groups, provide evidence that the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, The American Academy of Pediatrics, APSAC, or any other large national professional group recognizes and includes the ACT organization as a recognized member.
6. Isn't it true that ACT, as a fringe advocacy group, and your actions as a member or participant in it, reflect a specific agenda?
7. Do you have regular communications with Mercer regarding this page and comments, plans, and strategies?
8. The various other questions you've not responded to I won't repeat here as they are listed above.
DPeterson
:First, all of my questions to you (in your various incarnations) fell into two categories:
::1.  Determining whether you, or the other anonymous contributors, were in reality the same person.  Known in Wikipedia editing as "sock puppetry", doing that is considered rude and in some circumstances against Wiki policy.  Otherwise, I don't care who or what you are.
::2.  Asking for evidence of the statements made, especially in the article.  I dispute many of the statements, of course, but am willing to be persuaded by evidence.  Thus, I have no interest in why you made those statements, though I have an opinion that it's for spamming purposes.
:Your questions, however, are entirely inappropriate here, as would be answering them, because they have nothing to do with the Wiki article.  You may think that membership in a group, or having an "agenda," is relevant to the truth or falseness of statements made, but the fallacy of that is obvious to almost anyone else.
:So, go elsewhere for the answers to your questions (google would be a good start) and try, as much as you're able, to stick to the subject here (John Bowlby) and argue your position with an eye toward consensus.
:Also, if you (or the others, if there are any others) don't know the answers to your own questions, you (or the others, if there are any others) shouldn't have made some of the statements you (or the others, if there are any others) made on this page.  It was, at the very least, reckless.
:Sarner 18:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: QUESTIONS FOR SARNER REGARDING HIS/HER STATUS AS MEMBER OF FRINGE GROUP