Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 2006-2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 McLean Hospital 2 In an Ideal World 3 Can Someone Explain This? 4 Too big, a continuation of "Ideal World" 5 Specific issues to be discussed, cited, or revised 6 Rewriting 7 Symptoms, Neutral POV, and Factual Accuracy 8 JennieSue Edits 8.1 NPOV edits 8.2 What? 9 OK Let's Get Civilised 10 Bowing out 11 Bowing out Part II 11.1 One More POV 12 Calling Zeraeph 13 Archiving 14 Authorship... 15 My experiences 16 Thanks, all 17 Jungian personae and links 18 Peer reveiw of another article 19 Ross’ new book 20 Removed Ross Institute Link 21 My experiences II 22 Anon editor's contribution 23 Isn't dissociation normal? 24 proposed changes 25 Sources

McLean Hospital

This is not a big deal, I suppose, as other and more important issues appear still to be controversial, but I would suggest removing " prehaps the best mental hospital in the world " bit of the sentence

<< Despite the controversy, many mental health institutes such as McLean Hospital, prehaps the best mental health institute in the world, have wards specifically designated for dissociative identity disorder >> ,

and not only because " prehaps " is a controversial spelling of a word which by its nature and construction already hints that it precedes a clause too timid and too objection-inspiring to make it into a set-in-stone encyclopedia article. -- Slavatrudu, April 2006.

In an Ideal World

Zora, no offence, but last night DanielMcBride posted the very first attempt ever at the kind of information that article SHOULD contain...an actual, academic description of what the disorder is supposed to be, NOT a load of irrelvancies about repressed memory, satanic cult abuse, healthy multiplicity nor even Multiple personality, but rather Dissociative identity disorder.

Dissociative identity disorder IS real, it exists, as an hypothesis put forward by the APA, which is as real as an other disorder in the DSM...an hypothesis. The controversy is not about whether the disorder is real or not, it is about whether anybody ever has, or ever will suffer from it, and without meeting every single person in the world there is NO WAY anybody, even you, can know for certain that it is NOT real.

Personally, I have my doubts about whether DID is "real" in it's present form, but this article shouldn't be about the controversy (any more than it should be about the Ferrari), nor should it be an opinion piece, nor should it be a showpiece for conflicting opinion pieces (as, it seems, you would have it). The article should just be a definition of dissociative identity disorder, right or wrong.

If you want to take all sides of the argument and create a new article such as Multiple Personality Debate, Multiple Personality Controversy (something along those lines seems likely to attract the most appropriate searches "multiple personality" being the more descriptive term, but you choose) I will support you, I will even trawl the "history" for anything that belongs there but was deleted due to irrelevance to DID, but this DID article should be ABOUT DID, and nothing else, the controversy should be a short paragraph and a link at most.

Now having reverted the article, I am going to go through it with a fine tooth comb and "de-pragmatize" it, then I am going to start removing the irrelevancies, hopefully to a specific page about the controversy which you will create.

DanieMcBride SHOULD really have discussed his changes here first, but in truth, what would be the point? He is just right. It is long overdue that somebody should just get out there and POST a definition of DID for the very first time. Because that is all that should ever have been here in the first place --Zeraeph 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you don't exile the controversy to another article, unless the article is already huge and getting unreadable. We did that with the Muhammad article -- which is still too long. You are imposing your own POV and this is not right or fair. Zora 12:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, let me put it another way you might understand. The wording of the Koran (a book for which I have the utmost respect) is not considered POV, whether one is a follower of Islam or not. One would not dedicate an article about Surat al-Ma'ida to describing the Indian Mutiny, which is surely a relevent conflict, with only a brief reference to the actual Sura in the intro, whether one agreed with it or not. One would place the information and various POV in an article called "Indian Mutiny" instead.

I will not disrespect the book by calling it an equivalent, but it is surely a parable?

You cannot fill an article with irrelevancies because "it isn't too big yet". Trust me, with the provided accurate "crib sheet" the article can grow alarmingly fast, without the need for a single irrelvancy.

An article specific to the MPD/DID controversy is the only appropriate place to lay out those arguments--Zeraeph 13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC): Just to express my own opinion, having read the article and this discussion page (not the archives), I have to say that the article at present is rather good. It seems to have an NPOV, and it seems to address both what DID is and explain that it is controversial, without getting bogged down in the controversy itself. So, despite all your arguing, I think you guys are doing a good job!

No, it is not a great job, and Zeraeph has mangled the article by imposing a "respect the authorities" stamp on it. It's not NPOV if one POV protests. Zora 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The only POV I have "imposed" is the POV that the article should actually BE about DID, not ritual abuse, nor false/repressed memories, but, just like it says on the tin, DID. When I first saw it this article barely mentioned what DID was, let alone making any attempt to define it, before launching into irrelevancies about the MPD/DID controversy, in fact, that article, with three words changed in the first line, has become the multiple personality controversy, because that is what it was about, not DID (and that is important stuff too, but not here, where it isn't relevant. To claim that the topic of an article should be a minor detail buried under one controversy (as you want it to be) that touches that topic, is as POV as it gets. You proved that when as soon as third party posted quite a lot of actual information about DID that was lacking you reverted him, as though you wanted to censor all mention of explaining or defining DID. --Zeraeph 09:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Zerapeth, I completely agree with you. There IS controversy regarding the existence of DID, however one thing which I feel must be taken into consideration is that among psychological authorities its existence is not debated. The primary sources quoted were not the DSM-IV nor other experts on the topic but two articles by little-known psychiatrists and a skeptic's dictionary. An article about DID should be written as objectively as possible, quoting legitimate authorities, citing statements with as much neutrality and accepted fact as possible, NOT opinion based arguments. Such things belong in a different, albeit related, article. ---Taylor M

Zeraeph, if the very EXISTENCE of a syndrome is doubted, it is POV to use language that accepts its reality. Instead of saying "DID is", language like "the DSM-IV says DID is" is required. You are so convinced of your rightness -- and apparently of the rightness of the DSM-IV -- that this seems to escape you. Zora 10:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, after reading over your User Discussion page, I am going with the concensus in suggesting that your personal editorial tactics err toward the heavy-handed, and are themselves POV.

That said, as an authority on psychopathology, I am going to respectfully request that you remove the POV tag that you preemptively and presumptuously attached to this article upon discovering that it no longer met with what I perceive to be your personal standards for neutrality.

It is clear that what is going on here is no longer about editing, but ego. Not only yours, but a number of indiviudals seemingly engrossed in the conversation at hand.

The topic is controversial. So is Complex Post Traumatic Stress and Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder, neither of which I see you soap-boxing about. That said, the controversy will be noted in the content of the article, and appropirate references made. In the meantime, kindly knock it off. Thanks! --Mjformica 18:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "soap-boxing" about those disorders because I haven't done the research. Zora 22:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC): It seems to me that everything presented in the article is presented as the opinion of the authors of the DSM-IV, and that the article is about the DIAGNOSIS, not about whatever the mental disease they are trying to diagnose is. The DSM-IV IS the absolute authority on what the DSM-IV says. The DSM-IV can be wrong, which is addressed in the controversy section, but as far as the diagnosis of DID as outlined by the DSM-IV, that is fact, and is represented as exactly that. It is a fact that the DSM-IV says this is what DID is. Topics more relating to the condition itself (Healthy Multiplicity, Multiple Pesonality Controversy) are more subjective and are the place to say the DSM-IV is wrong. The DSM-IV cannot be wrong about what the DSM-IV says, that's a logical impossibility. Unless you are claiming that the DSM-IV is suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder.

On a side note, is the clean-up warning still necessary? Zora, I understand you feel the need for the Neutrality warning, but the article seems well written with plenty of citations... I'm new to Wikipedia editting, and so maybe my standards for this aren't as high as they ought to be, but I thought I would raise the question.

All of you are new to Wikipedia editing. I've been doing it for two years, and picking through the minefields in the Islam-related articles. Of course the article is simpler and easier to read if you tidy away the controversy. BUT -- the Wikipedia way is to present all sides of a controversy -- or at least all notable sides -- and not just one. Every argument should, ideally, be referenced and footnoted, so that the sentence or para doesn't stand as WP saying that X is true, it is WP saying that somebody believes X, and demonstrating it.

We cover all notable views. That means views held by a sizeable number of people. Nobody has given a numeric figure yet, but there are enough DID-doubters that you can't just dismiss them as kooks. Multiple Identities and False Memories, Nicholas Spanos, 1996, American Psychological Association -- that's mainstream. Less than ten years old.

Furthermore, we don't use the structure of the article to suggest that one view is true and others are just irrelevant flourishes. The presentation has to be neutral as well.

The distinction between the condition and the diagnosis is being used to remove controversy. This "diagnosis" is a recent innovation, it replaces a discredited diagnosis, there's a political history, and it should not be covered up. Zora 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC): First of all, you didn't answer my question regarding the Quality Standards thing. You immediately jumped on the Neutrality thing, which I was trying to put aside for at least part of my post.

Second, there is no controversy over what the DSM-IV defines DID to be. The DSM-IV may very well be wrong about the causes of symptoms described by the diagnosis of DID, but the term DID refers to the DSM-IV's diagnosis, not the symptoms. It's like if a doctor sees you have a cough and a fever, and says you have the flu. You may very well not have a single influenza virus in your body, and it could be caused by something else. Therefore, there is controversy over what you have, but there is no controversy over what the flu is. The flu is still the influenza virus. Same here. DID, no matter who you are, is what the DSM-IV says it is. The controversy is whether someone who experiences these symptoms actually has DID (that is, whether someone who is claiming alters has just imagined them, or whether having alters is a negative thing, in which case the person would claim the symptoms of DID but not actually have DID). Now, if the authority said that the condition 'gobbledeegook' was caused by the zilch virus, would the fact that the zilch virus does not exist change what 'gobbledeegook' was, by definition? This article is not misleading, it does not suggest that the DSM-IV is necessarily right. If it makes you feel better, why don't you introduce the thing with DID is a controversial diagnosis found in the DSM-IV or something along those lines? Then people would know up front that not everyone agrees with the DSM-IV. STILL doesn't change what the DSM-IV says. Maybe it is also worth mentioning that "Dissociative Identity Disorder" is ONLY found in the DSM-IV, and that every other guide to mental illness lists Multiple Personality Disorder, or something.

I just can't see how anyone would be mislead reading this. "Dissociative Identity Disorder is a diagnosis" A diagnosis. Maybe it's not a real disease, maybe they've got it wrong, but as of right now, this is what they're diagnosing it as. That much is true. Then it goes on to describe what the diagnosis says is going on, and then it explains what people think happened to cause what they think is happening in the patient's head. I would say it is quite clear that no one is certain. None of this seems to be pushing a POV, they're just saying this is what the DSM-IV says. Never insinuates in the slightest way that the DSM-IV is right. Then it goes on to an introduction to the controversy and provides links to two related articles which between them ought to be able to explain every POV (since you've got the people who think the DSM's right, the people who think multiplicity doesn't exist and that the whole thing is made up, and the people who think it's not a disorder but a way of being). It then continues, after this, to go into more detail about what the DSM says.

As far as myself pushing any point of view, if you want my opinion on the DSM-IV, read this: http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/dsmiv.html I certainly am not fighting for the DSM here. I believe that there could be healthy multiples (though I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming to be), I believe that most diagnosed DID patients are not actually multiple, and I believe that sometimes, very rarely, people do "shatter" like the DID says they do, and that these people need help to restore their former unity. Which pretty much covers EVERY POV.

Except yours. Not even sure what yours is, except that it's obviously anti-DSM.

I was really surprised to see this page has information implying that DID is not real. I've never heard of that position before. I have dissociated before... it's well known that alot of child abuse survivors (that I know as well) have DID and DDNOS. Sometimes wiki pages turn into a vendetta bout why the topic is not legitimate instead of a summary of what it's actually about. I thought the introduction was very awkward and did not make DID very clear. It's a person (one) who has a root persona and "alternate" or "alters" who take over when the host person is over whelmed. It's not too odd sounding when described that way. It actually makes alot of sense that this happens. The alters are usually younger than the host (child like) - maybe a throw back to simpler days. The host often does not remember. IT also has to do with the fact that when in trauma or PTSD the brain parts are not communicating with each other normally. The path between the two sides of the brain is not working properly which causes trauma victims to use the right side of their brain to do left brain tasks. This is why art therapy is good for assault victims.

--12.211.21.87 04:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)survivor

Hi Survivor, though I agree with simplifying and clarifying things as much as possible, we really must introduce the article in strict accord with the basic DSM criteria and state only the indisputable fact that DID is a diagnosis. What you added, though simple and clear enough, was not from a neutral point of view and was largely, not only subjective, but also opinion. I am also not too happy with the Sidran Institute (or any other commercial venture) as a source. I don't know anything about them, but they seem far from impartial and I don't like some of the things I see on their links page, perhaps someone else will know more?

I have popped a bit of your edit back under "dissociation" because it seems to make the topic clearer?

Can we discuss the rest? --Zeraeph 11:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See continuation after Zaraeph's question (which really ought to be answered, if possible)

Can Someone Explain This?

And I do MEAN explain it, I just don't know what it means and doubt if the average reader would either, though it seems important, so I would like to see it explained more fully:

"If it is real, should it be defined in psychoanalytic terms?"

--Zeraeph 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In case nobody realises, I actually LIKE that controversy section, it is concise, to the point, and says it all, frankly, it goes out OVER MY DEAD BODY...but if nobody bothers to answer my question soon (and work that answer into the controversy section), I will HOLD MY BREATH TILL MY FACE TURNS BLUE and who knows where THAT might lead? --Zeraeph 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From where is this statement taken? Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

It's one of the points in the "Controversy" section. I have no idea what it means, and I'd like to know which also suggests it MIGHT need putting or explaining a little better in the article too? I'm just getting a bit peeeved that nobody will tell me what it means :o( --Zeraeph 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. It's really not, strictly speaking, a psychoanalytic construct, but rather one that would lend itself to an explanation via object relations theory, and/or analytic psychology, as I alluded to later on.

From this standpoint, multiplicity could be considered a manifestation of an unresolved complex, or possibly a manifestation of a pure archetype. As I noted, it might also be a subjective hyper-presentation of a persona on the part of the patient...or even of the shadow. Off the top of my head, I recall Kopp's 'Mirror, Mask, and Shadow' referencing this paradigm. And I know that I've heard Johnson talk about it, too; particularly in reference to the shadow.

I suppose I will expand the notions there...but, oddly, I have this day job thing happening... Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

Yeah, of course, I knew that ;o)

No seriously, I am stretching myself here to even begin to grasp this stuff, but more than just curiosity, I would like to be able to translate some of it into more accessible (at least to ME) terms. One more question you could take a morning off (hate that "day job" thing, I'm sure there are pills you can take for it) to answer...I vaguely recall (and can surely look up) the "shadow". Is there a theory that alters are, literally, manifestatations of the persona and shadow? Which would be a vastly different concept to the DSM version of DID...in that, rather than being defence mechanisms (as in the DSM) alters would actually be the amplified "voices" (for want of a better word) of the psych?

I probably haven't put that very well but I THINK I have half grasped it --Zeraeph 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a specific theory that addresses this, but it's an interesting concept. Complexes and archetypes are even less empirically verifiable than multiples. To suggest that somethng undefinable is a manifestation of something undefinable I think would get you thrown out of most universities, and thrown into most asylums. Metaphysically, it'd make a hell of a dissertation.

Yeah, that pretty much what the cops said when I called them about the little green alien fairies who landed their spacecraft at the bottom of my garden :o( --Zeraeph 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To your point that alters might be the amplied voices (better put, hyper-presentations) of interior personality structures such as complexes, archetypes, and persona...this is quite reasonable, and possibly even arguable, within the context of object relations theory.

No matter the contextual theory behind that manifestation, however, strictly speaking, all of this refers to the presentation of a defense mechanism. We all have complexes. The complexes that constellate to define the particular collection of persona that make up our individual personalities are a response to our experience and interpretation of the environment (social constructionism)...i.e., a defense mechanism. Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

Giving this careful thought...it seems to me that interior personality structures are integral parts of everyone, they may change shape through trauma, but they exist because we do...dissociation and splitting, however, exist as REACTIONS to perceived trauma...

So that, the voice of an interior personality structure could be seen as an "active" voice (though much of what it said would, perforce be "reactive", such is the nature of existance), whereas an alter resulting from dissociation would be, of it's very nature, "reactive"? Or am I thinking twaddle? --Zeraeph 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Too big, a continuation of "Ideal World"

The problem with the DSM is that it is using the physial-illness model, for economic reasons -- that is, insurance companies won't pay on vague Freudian diagnoses, so you need something that sounds as authoritative as anything else in medicine to get the insurance payments. However ... HOW mental illness (if there is such a thing) is caused, experienced, and expressed is usually heavily mediated by culture. There are a few disorders -- such as schizophrenia, I believe -- that seem to be organic or genetic disorders and occur with the same frequency all over the world. But MPD/DID is not schizophrenia. There are a handful of such diagnoses until Three Faces of Eve becomes a best-seller ... and inspires Sybil ... and then there are many thousands of diagnoses, most of them from the same few practitioners. That seems to me to be good epidemiological evidence of a FAD, not a disease.

My position may not be that far from yours, Dragoonwraith -- I'm generally suspicious, think that there MAY be something there, but suspect that it is badly conceptualized and described. I'm wondering if a description in terms like those of the postulated BDD (body dysmorphic disorder) might make sense -- that is, just as people experience body parts as out of control, bewitched, or not them, people experience some mental processes as ditto. How they do this would be culturally influenced. People in the contemporary US might actively seek validation as multiples; teenage girls in Tonga get avea, possessed by demons, instead. Also brings up questions of repression, denial, avoidance -- which I'm not equipped to handle, really.

If you had read the old article you would have seen that I was trying NOT to put this forward, as it's original research. Zora 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC): Zora, I understand your position and generally agree with your opinion on the DSM and DID, but I think that that stuff more correctly belongs in the Multiple Personality Controversy article. This article serves its purpose and to add all of that would bog it down, in my opinion. Keep the controversy in the Controversy article, stick to the basics with this one. It's not as if this article ignores the controversy or suppresses it, it just doesn't get into it. I think that is sufficient.

Just want to comment I agree with much of what you say about DSM and DID too. I like your theory of DID (as akin to BDD) very much, it sounds, to me, to be very probable, you have certainly convinced me of the possibility a similarity between the two (I heavily researched a piece on BDD once and, as a disorder, it is very hard to add up, let alone make sense of, but your idea of connecting the two seems to put a clearer shape on it). I have also seen plenty of, clearly, attention seeking "hysterical" multiples in my time.

But I also agree with DragoonWraith (who seems to have said what I was trying to say, but better). This article is called Dissociative identity disorder, a DSM IV TR diagnosis, and should be about describing and defining Dissociative identity disorder and there is no "controversy" over whether that diagnosis exits as a diagnosis or not.

The controversy is mentioned, very firmly, and linked to Multiple personality controversy which also gets redirects from every obvious search term I could think of. Which is pretty much YOUR article (as it stood before I even saw it), and a very GOOD article too, but about the controversy, NOT about DID the diagnosis, because it isn't, the actual diagnosis gets so little mention that there was literally nothing to edit out as irrelevant.--Zeraeph 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC): Personally, I think the controversy ought to be higher up in the article, before you get into the technical stuff. I suspect Zora would agree with this. I haven't been able to thoroughly go over the last few edits, so I'm not certain how things stand as they are; the only major observation I've made is about the position of the controversy section.

Essentially, because we are specifically keeping the Controversy section short and linking to another article for more in depth look at it, it should be higher since it won't get in people's way and is probably more relavent to the casual researcher. One doesn't come to Wikipedia for diagnosis and treatment advice, and I think it's important to explain the controversy before getting into the details of DID.

See how it works now, Remember "Definition" is only my trial break up of the intro because it was unweildy, and there doesn't seem to be a way to boil it down or synopsise it without losing important meaning, but if anyone can find a way to boil it down to a more concise and complete intro (that is the referenced by the "Controversy" and makes sense of the section), so the whole definition can be shifted down I would be just as happy for it to go above the definition...just NOT above the intro, and as it stands the intro leads into the defintion and really can't be seperated...--Zeraeph 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 02:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC): Upon further rereading, perhaps the current intro ought to be below the table of contents, as its own section, with the Diagnostic Criteria as a subsection. The intro strikes me as a little bit long, it's kind of weird to have to scroll down to see the Table of Contents. A new intro might be needed, or else the current intro can be split somehow. Didn't really look specifically into how this might be done, since I wanted ask what people thought. My thought was a quick overview, "DID, formerly known as MPD, is a controversial diagnosis in the DSM which is characterized by the patient experiencing multiple personalities." More detailed than that, but you get the idea. Then a Definition section, with the DSM criteria link as a subsection, then the Controversy section, and then the more detailed business on theoretical causes and therapy. Just my 2¢.

Also, the ICD box there is weird, seeing as it reads "Multiple Personality Disorder" right at the top of "Dissociative Identity Disorder" (I know why, but a new reader might not), is there a similar box we can put there (above the current one) for the DSM? That way it reads DID: DSM-IVTR code then MPD: ICD-10 code ICD-9 code. Just sort of stylistic suggestions there.

The problem with your intro suggest is that DID is not MPD. Dissociation is an evidenced based diagnosis. The controversy is about (1) whether MPD is real and, (2) whether DID can be a stand-alone condition, as it is usually tied to a morbid anxiety state. --Mjformica 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 18:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC): Yes, originally I had "formerly and elsewhere known as", implying that it is still called MPD by other books, but it sounded too confusing to me. On the other hand, to say that it is "also known as" suggests that there is no significance to the different name, and my understanding is that there is some difference.

Specific issues to be discussed, cited, or revised

This tag has been added to encourage a discussion of specific issues with this article, and deflect further generalized wrangling among contributors. Kindly list your concerns in bullet format, so that each may be addressed by the editorial community at large. Thank you. Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

DragoonWraith 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC): I am unclear on the difference between this tag and the previous one. Again, I am new to Wikipedia - might someone either link me to an explanation, or else simply explain it to me?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page .

This one directs users to the discussion page, and asks for specific concerns. The arguments have gotten off message, and become amorphis. --Mjformica 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 18:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC): Not clear on what has become amorphous in our discussions, we are still arguing over whether or not the controversy is adequately addressed in this article, as Zora maitains it has not. If it has been adequately addressed, then the POV warning label should come off entirely... And I'm still not sure that the Clean-Up label is appropriate, no one answered that question.

My point exactly. Zora's arguments are agenda driven. I changed this tag so as to force a conversation re: exact issues. Again, the controversy is not about dissociation, it is about MPD. Zora is not seeing the difference. --Mjformica 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And you know that is SUCH a shame MJformica, because I approached this article as someone with a nodding aquaintance with MPD and DID who had been know to indulge in phases of bandying the terms abouyt without and full and specific grasp of what they meant.

During this editing I have learned SO much more...to the extent that next time I mention those disorders I will actually know what I am talking about instead of just sounding as if I do. Filling the gaps in our knowledge is so satifying.

Of course, having, in my time, worked on both sides of those issues, I already knew a lot about Ritual Abuse claims and False/Repressed memory, and have some very well founded and fully rounded opinions...but if I didn't, I think I probably would have sought the information under Satanic ritual abuse, False memory and Repressed memory , not under DID.--Zeraeph 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting

I'm still rewriting. Hope to finish today. Zora 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, you are not qualified to do anything but EDIT this article. Re-writing it is not within you area of expertise, and I can assure you that gross re-writes that compromise the integrity of the subhject matter will meet with reversion. --Mjformica 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the wholesale deletion of the existing (totally relevant and balanced) article would be considered exceptional vandalism, and would have to be treated as such...so I am certain Zora could not possibly be planning to do any such thing.--Zeraeph 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you can march in and delete a whole article, who's to say that someone else can't do the same thing? Zora 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora I most certainly did NOT "delete" an whole article, far from it, I even restored earlier deletions, and removed it to Multiple personality controversy where it is 100% relevant, which it certainly was not here, and then re-edited (to remove any suggestion of bias) the huge chunk of relevant information you had just summarily vandalised thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&diff=39037401&oldid=39025406.

Of course, should you inadvertantly vandalise the existing article in the same way, it won't be a problem, it can be restored above your new material while it is carefully merged wherever truly relevant and appropriate. --Zeraeph 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, lets see what she has to say, I am sure there will be material of great merit that, if not relevant here, can be moved (with all due respect) to articles where it IS relevant...and, of course, we can discuss this here.

So, I suggest Zora do what was done here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&oldid=676282

...and append her rewrite to the existing article so that all her material can be carefully merged wherever it is most relevant and appropriate.

Is that a plan? --Zeraeph 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

Symptoms, Neutral POV, and Factual Accuracy

I reverted this article to the version that I posted at 4 pm on 2/17. This topic lacks the intellectual quality that other topics on wikipedia.com possess. In the past 2 weeks, I have tried to add a list of symptoms several times, use a neutral POV, and provide accurate information, but still the problems with this article remain.

Symptoms for this disorder are well accepted. See: http://www.sidran.org/didbr.html; http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section15/chapter188/188d.jsp; and http://www.webmd.com/content/article/118/112901.htm

If someone disagrees with this list of symptoms, please provide and explanation and references.

See Piper, Lilienthal, Spanos, and Acocella. This diagnosis is NOT well accepted. You are citing only websites that agree with you. Certainly info can be given, but only as an opinion held by some authorities, not as an uncontested truth. Zora 07:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the factual accuracy of this article is in question. Zora has repeatedly insisted that there is a huge controversy surrounding DID. Can you give a reference for this? Everything that I have read insists that this is a well-documented disorder.

DanielMcBride 03:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Daniel, I think the article is getting better with every edit lately (Thanks for being the first person to "break the mould" and actually post hard, pertinant information among the gross irrelevancies!). There certainly is a degree of controversy around DID, but that is only one aspect, among many, of the disorder after all --Zeraeph 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All you folks have to do is actually READ some of the references in the current list, such as Lilienthal, Piper, Spanos, and Acocella.

As for insisting on that list of symptoms ... that is grossly irresponsible. Zora 04:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Insisting on having a list of symptoms, in an article about a disorder, is "grossly irresponsible"???

I don't BELIEVE you just said that.

What should be have instead, a section headed "guess the symptoms"? Instead of being unreasonable, I think you should do Daniel the courtesy of explaining which of the symptoms you disagree with, and why --Zeraeph 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of those "symptoms" are so dang general that just about any reader might say, "Gee, I'm depressed and anxious and I eat too much, so I have an eating disorder. I might have DID!" Zora 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

GOOD GRIEF! Symptoms of a brain tumor are "headache", "dizziness" and "disorientation" but we don't suppress them because they are "too general". Individual symptoms of anything, by their very nature, are almost always fairly generalised, which is why they are usually provided by the list rather than in isolation --Zeraeph 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of symptoms is useless if you list things that might be caused by any number of other problems -- or might not even be mental problems at all. All you need is what you believe to be distinguishing diagnostic features, plus a note that the supposed syndrome is often accompanied by such-and-such, however such-and-such can be caused by many things and is not necessarily indicative of the alleged syndrome. Zora 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So you don't actually disagree with any of the list of symptoms at all, you just don't think they should be there because, individually, they could also have other causes? Following THAT argument we should never post the symptoms of anything--Zeraeph 10:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the symptoms might be general, but amnesia, depersonalization, and derealization are quite specific to this disorder. Zora, if you disagree with these symptoms, please provide some references so that everyone can consider your argument. DanielMcBride 06:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your formulation, giving all the supposed symptoms the same weight. Furthermore, I disagree, and others disagree, that DID can be reliably diagnosed. Zora 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And while that is interesting as part of this discussion, as it is pure POV it should not influence our editing of the article --Zeraeph 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The literature shows that 1) there is no proof for the claim that DID results from childhood trauma; 2) the condition cannot be reliably diagnosed; 3) contrary to theory, DID cases in children are almost never reported; and 4) consistent evidence of blatant iatrogenesis appears in the practices of some of the disorder’s proponents. Piper and Merskey 2004, which is one of the links in the article. Zora 07:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

SOMEof "the literature shows"...while some other shows the contrary...--Zeraeph 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 19:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC): Perhaps the solution here is not to have a list of symptoms, but rather to explain them? So that we can say things like "DID commonly causes things like a, b, and c, which while general and might be caused by another condition, may indicate DID. On the other hand, symptoms like d and e (presumably the presence of alters and the loss of memory from when those alters are thought to control your body) are unique to DID, but resist self-diagnosis as the patient cannot be aware of these by definition." Or something like that. I am not comfortable, for the most part, with writing to this article myself; most of you seem to have a far firmer grasp of the disorder than I, however, suggestions such as these I feel ought to be considered, because they seem to me to be the answer to making everyone happy. Zora, Daniel, and Zeraeph, might you be able to more easily come up with a paragraph rather than a list which makes everyone happy?

The trouble with listing symptoms in paragraphs is that they are so much less clear, and harder to grasp. I honestly prefer to bullet list symptoms in tables, for "at a glance" clarity. --Zeraeph 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

JennieSue Edits

DragoonWraith 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC): Haven't gone through them thoroughly, but some of them seemed very good. She apparently did not feel the need to discuss them here, but they ought to be discussed, and I would imagine that some of it, at least, is worth incorporating.

JenniSue DID discuss them here, but put them at the top instead of the bottom, so I have just moved them down for discussion --Zeraeph 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. DragoonWraith

NPOV edits

Here is what I did: (1)I changed the initial definition of DID to the DSM-IV-TR definition. We can debate causation, explanation, etc. all day long, but nobody can really dispute that the DSM-IV-TR is a guide put out by the Americal Psychiatric Association and their definition of DID is what's linked. (2)I added a discussion of dissociation, which is a common (and not really controversial) psychological phenomenon, and its relation to DID. (3) I moved all of the text about ego integration, etc. from the definition to the "Theory" section. This is not the only theory/explanation for DID -- there are biochemical theories as well as the theory of iatrogenesis and I'll add those later. (4) I changed the "Symptoms" section to "Symptoms Associated with DID" -- the symptoms OF DID are in the DSM definition. (5)I revised the "Treatment and Diagnosis" section and moved "Prognosis" after it because that made more sense to me. I am missing some links, I know, I just haven't figured out how to do them yet. JenniSue 09:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What?

What does this mean? 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 s/he cannot manage, some part of the person remains connected to reality. While the psychotic "breaks" from reality, the dissociative disconnects, but not all the way.

Admittedly, I'm new here, but these sentences make little or no sense to the average reader. There are ALL KINDS of differences between psychosis and dissociation, starting with the fact that psychosis (even a "psychotic break") is generally considered to be biochemically-based. It's not a coping mechanism and it's treated with medication, adequate sleep and nutrition, sobriety, and proper medical care. This pseudo-Freudian business is about 50 years out of date.

It means what it says. And as for this "business" being out of date, I can name about 12 psychiatrists whom I work with on a daily basis that would laugh outright at that statement. This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I made the statement about nodding aquaintence versus actual experience. I refer to your comment about Borderlines and movies, wherein both you and Jennilight were flat out wrong in your comments. --Mjformica 11:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have an issue with something I've said re Borderline Personality Disorder and movies, please address it at borderline personality disorder.

(A)The paragraph itself is confusing. Telling me "it means what it says" is not helpful when I am having trouble understanding what, exactly, it does say. My problem is not that I only have a "nodding acquaintence" with psychology (an incorrect assumption I've discussed below), my problem is the number of commas and dependent phrases in the first sentence make it difficult to comprehend. Is what you mean to say "The difference between a psychotic break and a dissociative break (or dissociation) is that a psychotic break represents a complete separation from reality. By contrast, a person experiencing a dissociative break may separate from a particular situation s/he cannot manage but there is still some connection to reality as a whole." or something similar?

(B)I can name about 50 psychiatrists who think that psychoanalysis is out of date and that the appropriate way to treat psychotics is with medication and lifestyle changes. Are we voting? In addition to my objections re standard written English, I have issues with the accuracy of the statement. Psychotic people haven't completely separated from reality -- how else would they ride buses, trains, put clothes on, respond to questions? Moreover, if psychosis is "only" a coping mechanism, how do you explain the differences in PET scans (which measure glucose uptake) between schizophrenic and "normal individuals? Or the ability of many psychotic patients to function in society after treatment with dopamine/dopamine-serotonin regulators? Or the fact that twin studies show an increased risk in psychosis between identical twins as compared to fraternal twins/siblings? Or that both brain damage and certain drugs can cause psychosis?

Anyway, what is the point of the comparision? We can say "the difference between possession by demons and dissociation is..." or "the difference between diptheria and dissociation is" all day long. DID is NOT a diagnosis of exclusion. If the issue is what is the difference between DID and schizophrenia, then say so. If the issue is what is the difference between dissociation and psychosis, then we need to start with the fact that dissociation is common and psychosis is less so. 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I've read the archives to try and figure out what's going on here, I'm really surprised that this article isn't divided into the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis criteria and THEN a discussion of causation. Isn't that the real issue? Is this an iatrogenic disorder (which, by the way, is not mentioned as a possibility anywhere in the article) or caused by trauma or something else?

It was...Zora won't have it. --Mjformica 11:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it that Zora won't have the DSM-IV-TR definition cited as exactly that, or that Zora won't have "Dissociative Identity Disorder" defined as XYZ, which assumes that Dissociative Identity Disorder exists? It would be helpful if Zora herself would clarify. JenniSue 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head, JenniSue. It is necessary to say exactly what the DSM diagnosis is; it is not necessary to assume its "reality", or to advance a certain theory of causation. Zora 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, dissociation in and of itself is a fairly well established psychological symptom -- the sense of being outside of one's body or somehow "apart" from what's going on. Lots -- maybe most-- of people dissociate at one time or another, when they're tired or stressed or grieving. What makes DID different is that the patient believes that the personalities/aspects of a single personality are separate from each other and it's chronic. And that brings us to the second big issue -- what should therapists do about that? There are several different approaches, just like there are several different approaches to dealing with hallucinations or ruminating or panic attacks. It depends on the therapist's own beliefs and what's best for the patient. I've known people with DID who were very comfortable with the fact that there were several distinct "people" controlling their body and I've known others who did not function well until they reintigrated.

Now you're standing on my side of the street, whereas before you were on Zora's...see the problem with the manner in which the article and its content are being approached? --Mjformica 11:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. The only problem I see is the with-us-or-against-us mentality. I'm standing in the middle of the street hollering at you guys that buses full of people who are confused and distressed keep coming by looking for information and all they get are esoteric arguments. What they need to know is that if they've been told they have DID by someone else, THIS is what that person probably means. If they think they have DID based on reading a bunch of stuff, they need to see a professional. But in either case, they deserve treatment that is tailored to them. If they don't remember being abused, that's OK. If they remember being abused, that's OK, too. There are safe places where they will be helped.JenniSue 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you are a "healthy multiple," then you don't have a disorder (something that causes a lack of order or normal functioning in your life). As above, it's great that works for you, but it may not be what works for everyone. This is not a political movement or a human rights issue. It's like arguing that Risperdal is a better drug than Zyprexa -- depends on who you are.

I do find it interesting that several people who identify themselves as "healthy multiples" also identify as autistic/having Asperger's Disorder. For those of you who fall into this category (or know someone who does), do you think that the dissociation of facets of your personality is related to the other dissociations in autism-spectrum disorders, like dissociation of language to images or social disconnects? I think there's an argument to be made that people who experience DID symptoms and have an autism-spectrum disorder (especially if they're OK with remaining multiple/fragmented) are a different kettle of fish from those who experience DID in other contexts. Sorry this is so long. JenniSue 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You make good, valid points. The problem is that, just as if your making pgood valid points about a pro-ana lifestyle (por-anorexic), certain persons involved int his discussion are going to argue you down. --Mjformica 11:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the connection here, except maybe in the sense that one is labelled "DID" or "anorexic" by others. The philosophical concepts that one can either be a faceted, but single, person vs. we are all composites of multiple people is completely separate from the reality of an individual who is missing time and feels out of control of his or her body. Similarly, the aesthetic concept that bodies should be lithe and without excess mass is completely separate from an individual who has heart damage because s/he is not getting enough protein. One is something you talk about over a bottle of wine, the other is a human being in pain. If people want to shout about that, they can. JenniSue 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Let's Get Civilised

Before we go any further, can we discuss this?

Personally, I would be happy to have either MJFormica or JenniSue's content, quite equally, for different reasons, so I am getting it really hard to understand why either of them would feel the need to cut each other out so dramatically.

Surely it doesn't have to be one or the other? There must be a way to merge both?

Can we start discussing this? Find the common ground and the disagreements and work around them, before you both get yourselves a Sunday ban on the 3 revert rule?

Please? --Zeraeph 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to "compromise" on prose. There's only the usual WP demand that all POVs be represented. Authors holding one POV do not have the right to insist on THEIR PROSE at whatever length they please.

I'm still stalled out on the DID article revision -- editing too many articles, and facing a stack of boxes with proofs for a book on Polynesian art. Must work. Zora 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I'm not talking about the "prose", but about the excellent and relevant information and content presented by these two editors, I would personally love to see as much as possible of both retained and see no reason why that shouldn't be possible, with a little civilised discussion.

I await your revision, and the opportunity to merge it where it is relevant and appropriate, with bated breath --Zeraeph 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph -- I see the notice at the top of the page now; I'd just glanced at it before and though it was the other exclamation mark notice. So I apologize for not posting my suggestions here before just enacting them, although I still don't see how that can be characterized as vandalism. Also, I apologize to anyone who was confused by my lack of directional ability (posts at top instead of bottom).

I suggest, as someone did above, that it's confusing to put the "cleanup needed" logo on the main page and the "don't clean up unless you ask first" logo here. Some consistency would be most helpful.

My rationale in making the edits I did was that it's better to start with the things contributors can agree on, rather than starting with someone's POV. The reason I started with the DSM-IV definition -- Can we all agree that the DSM-IV is a book put out by the American Psychiatric Association? And can we all agree that the term "Dissociative Identity Disorder" is defined by the DSM-IV as a particular set of symptoms? Are there other, alternative definitions for "DID" (Not the ICD stuff, but "DID")? I understand that there is dispute about whether or not DID spontaneously occurs (Zora -- you and I briefly discussed this) and, if so, what causes it (lots of people, as discussed above) and whether it is a disorder (healthy multiples). But there are entries for iatrogenesis (including lobotomy and puerperal fever) and there are entries for disorders of unknown/complex causation (schizophrenia) and for conditions once believed to be pathological but that aren't generally considered so now (homosexuality). There are even, for the "special treatment" contingent, entries for Ganser syndrome and factitious disorder.

So I guess I don't understand what the substantive problem with that part of my edit was.--JenniSue 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My only problem with it is the amount of valid information you deleted. I'm greedy, I want to keep both. Because you have created a great overview accessible to anyone, and MJFormica has gone into the deeper specifics of what DID is and how it occurs in psychological terms. I know that if I were seeking information I would want to find BOTH, and I would be somewhat p*...WHOOPS...I mean DISMAYED, if either were missing.

There is no limit to the size of an article, as long as it is all relevant and objective. There just HAS to be a way to keep both.--Zeraeph 11:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the point to JenniSue that I would like to include her content in the overall article. I stand by that statement. I am unconfortable with the manner in which she began her contributions.

Zora, I, too, await your edits...but I would request that those edits be discussed before being "dropped in". And, I do not see Zaraeph's efforts as "compromise", but, rather, an attempt to manage some pretty strong egos. Granted, he's being rather British about the whole thing (JOKE!), but I applaud, and value, the attempt.

JenniSue, putting the DSM definition first is a nice idea, but it is also the main point of contention with regard to the controversy of this article. The DSM itself is POV, and to use it as a tool to deflect POV (especially in light of Zora's position on this entire issue) is just "poking the bear". To your point, no, we can't all agree, and that's the problem. And homnosexuality was only removed as a pathology in DSM-TR...it was a pathology in the DSM-IV and previous editions. Blessings --Mjformica 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)

OH TRUST ME, what a time to pick to start getting suicidal with the article!

But actually you are DEAD WRONG about my motivation...I am almost entirely motivated by the need to "suck up" to you AND JenniSue for the sake of all those other psych articles that are full of cr...WHOOPS...I mean MISINFOMATION.

Well, what's done is done, but before you start discussing among yourselves how best to dispose of me, can I remind Y'all that the article DID really need a shorter, more concise and accessible intro, and JenniSue sorta PUT one there?

MJformica, you have to remember that not everybody who needs this information is a psych major. I am a straight A "psych minor" as well as a "psychohobbist" and you stretch ME to the limit. I believe your information is essential to the article (and want to wheedle you into putting it on a few more PD articles before long) but so is an accessible, potted version --Zeraeph 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bowing out

This article is no longer about content, and, in point of fact, I am not certain it ever was. JenniSue's presence is only making muddy waters moreso. To that end, despite a mandate from several administrators to clean up, academize, and professionalize the mood related and psych pages, I am outta here. You kids have a good time. I'm done wasting mine. --Mjformica 11:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah c'mon, revert if you must, but don't become the fifth member of "Il Divo" on me...PLEASE...I was TRYING to explain. --Zeraeph 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

MJformica -- I don't have an agenda except to reach consensus and have understandable information. I recognize that other people here have had agendas and certainly there have been incidents of unkindness/intolerance. But that's not where I'M coming from. I figure that people who access this page (like me, when I first found wikipedia) are average folks looking for information about a specific topic. I spent hours reading the talk archives for the page. Maybe I was WRONG, but it wasn't from some sort of evil motive or agenda. My personal feeling is that people in distress are people in distress and, if they're seeking treatment, the treatment should be based on what the individual needs and not some arbitrary label that's for the benefit of insurance companies. I apologize if I was harsh about the psychoanalysis angle, but the objection was really about the nature of psychosis and the fact that I have to talk to a psychotic person at least once a day who is convinced that they don't need medicine, they need people to stop plotting against them and my professional frustration with that. If you want to go hammer and tongs with me about the biological nature of psychosis, perhaps we could move to the psychosis talk page. Overall, the only investment I have on wikipedia and in RL is to help people in pain. Isn't that the same motivation you have?

Also, you've made a LOT of assumptions about me based on the fact that I have listed my profession as "attorney" on my user page. Before I went to law school, I was educated and worked in both social(psychology -- how humans assess risk, learning, and gender roles) and "hard" science (primarily microbiology). Disability attorney is just my latest thing.

If you want to stop working on this page, that's your choice. It's unfair of you to link your desire to disengage to my attempt to join this discussion. I have apologized for my newbie mistakes, but I am not going to take responsibility for your assumptions about me or your dissatisfaction with other contributors. I feel that I have been made a scapegoat for something that was brewing long before I arrived on the scene. You didn't like ONE THING I did (which I have explained and apologized for) and, when someone else tried to mediate our discussion (which was becoming more heated), you announced you were leaving. I don't know what my next move is supposed to be here, but I'm certainly willing to drop whatever personal conflict we have in the interest of creating a useful entry.JenniSue 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Zaraeph -- First, I appreciate your attempts to mediate. And I appreciate your willingness to take my original contribution and newbie mistakes at face value.

I didn't intend to REMOVE anything. I thought I'd just moved the original beginning part down the page to something like "Theories of DID," even the part that I did object to about psychosis vs. dissociation. I did that because there are other theories about why people experience "alters" and have periods of amnesia BESIDES just ego-splitting. Again, I want to stress that I believe that, no matter what the cause or appropriate treatment, people with DID are NOT faking and are in genuine distress. It's like going to the doctor with a headache -- we can agree that the symptoms of a headache are pain in your head. It's not pain in your feet, cramps in your abdomen, back spasms, or anything else. WHY your head hurts and what needs to be done about it (from nothing to brain surgery) are a completely separate issue from the definition of "headache". The fact that some people claim they have headaches when they don't (reported as a common excuse for not having sex) is an ancillary issue.

My understanding (and again, maybe I am mistaken) was that "Dissociative Identity Disorder" entered common usage after it was included in the DSM-IV. Therefore, we should start with the DSM -IV definition. Kind of like "Coke" -- the Coca-Cola people first popularized the name for their beverage, so an entry on "Coke" would start with their product. What Coke is made of, what it's used for, why people like it, Coke being a product with no nutritional value, the fact that some people refer to all soft drinks as "coke", Coca-Cola being either a super company or an evil cabal should be presented further down in the article. And, if someone has never drunk or seen Coke and believes the whole existence of the product to be made up by aliens, that should be at the very bottom, if at all. (I'm going to have to look up "Coke" after this) My preference (and again, I'm a newbie, so the extent to which my opinions should count is up to you guys) would be to start with a basic definition that we can agree on and then put competing POVs organized by subtopics. Am I making better sense now? JenniSue 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies, you most certainly did NOT delete MJformica. Unbeknownst to me, "Theories of DID" was still there. I think I just assumed you deleted it on account of his overreaction! I can't believe he would summarily delete you when you hadn't deleted him first.

Seems to me we are pretty much thinking along the same lines (as you will see if you look at my latest edit this morning that sent MJformica postal).

MJformica is an invaluable and irreplaceable source of 24 carat information on psychology (and I mean that sincerely). But if he feels that strongly about collaborating with others I guess we'll just have to find a way to manage without him? But before we do, I'd like to state that there is this misconception that the intro is the most important part of the article, and if you can "put your stamp" on that, you have the helm.

That's a load of nonsense, based on the journalistic practice whereby an article is written so that it can be cut, a paragraph at at time, from the bottom up, right to a single paragraph, and still stand alone and convey the basic information. This is done to meet the requirements of the greatest variety of publications and available space with a view to increasing the chances of being paid as well as the amount the journalist will be paid.

Here it is different. The intro is, in many ways, the LEAST important part of the article. It's just a hallway through which to enter the house. Because of that it should be brief, concise and accessible to the greatest number of people. Like a dictionary definition...or a soundbyte to summarise the topic...and that IS all many readers are looking for, so why not give it to them?

...and let them pass on while other readers go on to explore the real meat of the topic in depth?--Zeraeph 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue collaborating with others. I take issue with the fact that this article is no longer about content, but about positionality. And, frankly, that positionality is about Zora, and the community's attempts to appease her. You are not a scapegoat, JenniSue...but your presence, and the content of your private tete-a-tete's with Zora, solidify the exact us-against-them atmosphere against which you are railing, sorry to say.

Zaraeph, I take serious issue with the characterization of "being sent postal", and "over-reaction". Your edits had nothing to do with my decision to remove myself from this process. In point of fact, I did not even read the article before making that post.

JenniSue, I have no issue with you personally. If you feel that you have license to make sweeping changes to an article, then, by all means, make those changes. But, do it in a manner consistent with the forum, and also make that license clear. This is something you certainly did not do, nor did you in any way support your supposed acumen with some of the grossly uninformed comments you have made on other pages. And those comments were addressed on those pages.

As for my motivation, JS, it is as you say. I just don't have time to waste with petty nonsense. --Mjformica 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A final note. Consequent to the questioning of my professional acumen, and academic credentials by various individuals here, I have chosen to withdraw from the Wikipedia community altogether. --Mjformica 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I can speak for everyone here when I say that is a loss, but somehow, we will find a way to go on without you --Zeraeph 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to be smug. --Mjformica 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was being 100% sincere, but if you don't want to see it that way that's your prerogative --Zeraeph 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bowing out Part II

I think Mjformica is a fake. Look at his degrees:

Doctoral degree (PhD), Clinical Psychology.

Doctoral degree (ABD), Cognitive Science.

Master of Education degree (EdM), Counseling and Psychotherapy.

Masters degree (MA), Organizational Behavior.

Masters degree (MA), Experimental Psychology.

Board Certified Diplomate (DCFC), Clinical Forensic Psychology.

Board Certified Diplomate (NCSC), Sports Psychology.

Began working with clinical populations in 1980.

In clinical practice since 1988.

When could anyone possibly find time to earn all of these degrees?129.107.8.174 20:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah no, I think most of his qualifications are genuine (see http://www.mhsanctuary.com/therapist/cv.htm last updated February '05), his knowledge certainly is. I just think he exaggerates, not only his qualifications, but also his importance, not least in his own mind.

Also, the idea of some of the manipulation and control tactics he has applied to posters here, being applied to troubled adolescents is likely to keep me awake at nights for some time to come - but what else is new?

I'm sorry he is going to go away and take his knowledge and impartiality away with him, but I am delighted he will be taking away his attitude and his need to impose dysfunctional control on other editors. You could say I am "conflicted" here. --Zeraeph 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you as to the impartiality, Zeraeph, and as for the knowledge -- Jungian psychodynamic theory is passe. CBT is the gold standard now, and it's being challenged by other theories based on research and experimental validation. Freudian and Jungian theories can't say the same, though I'm not prepared to say that they have NOTHING to offer the profession. Still, they are rife with postulated entities that cannot be show to exist -- as is much of mjformica's prose. Zora 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change what I said here a little bit after a night's sleep made me see things more clearly and objectively

What MJFormica contributed was certainly well informed, accurate and relevant, the greatest problem is that it wasn't the whole story, and he wanted to insist that it was, by denying anyone else the right to contribute additional material.

He sacrificed the balance and quality of the article to his ego.

That he went on to use his knowledge of the human mind to devise some truly despicable tactics to enforce that is a seperate issue, and an equally important one in it's own right. I would hope none of us would ever accept that.

Zora, whatever you intended, what you have actually done, in the past, is to sacrifice objective, impartial, information about the topic to presenting only any knee jerk controversy and sensationalism you can find a way to connect to it. Which is pretty much the effect tabloid journalists are paid to aim for.

Your tactics haven't exactly been an example to the angels either, particularly as you ended up spending as much as a couple of years driving all comers off an article, that says, in essence: "DID is a controversy. Lots of rational people believe DID is imaginary, but I am giving equal space to the few loonies who believe it's real to be fair" even to the extent of ruthless exclusion of all mention of some of the pretty obvious loonies who believe DID is imaginary too(see Multiple personality controversy for the exact article.

That won't do either, and in your heart I think you know it, even though you got away with it so long.

I want to see ALL POV presented here (I have told you before, and I reiterate now, I do not HAVE a favorite POV on DID), but I want to see those POV presented in the same objective, impartial, relevant way as the existing material. Iatrogenesis belongs here, in as much objective, impartial, relevant detail as we can muster, satanic ritual abuse and repressed memory does not, except perhaps for a mention of the slight connection in passing and a link.

THAT is impartiality, THAT is NPOV, passive aggression is not NPOV.

Before you think I am trying to suggest you are as bad as MJformica, I certainly am not, the level of egomanic bullying he indulges in truly staggers me (not least because he is deluded enough to think it will get him somewhere).--Zeraeph 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Mjformica's information is spot on and pretty impartially presented, but now I know I won't be able to wring another ounce of it from him, whatever I say, I will admit I find his prose elitist, patronising and inaccessible to the point of obscurity. If you do check any of his writing on that site you will see, as I did, that IT IS NOT AS IF HE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER. ;o)

I dislike obscure prose, it always feels to me like a doorway marked "servant's entrance to the rear", a subliminal message to many, MANY readers who just did not have the same educational advantages that they are NOT GOOD enough, and not welcome, to share the knowledge happily to be flaunted to those he considers their "betters".

Life requires more than academic accuracy and objectivity, while I value his contributions as highly as I ever did (I don't pay much attention to anyone's qualifications, I check the information they contribute) his behavior has been beyond the pale, to ALL of us. --Zeraeph 00:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, the old article was not perfect -- the problem was that I was defending it against people with axes to grind. The article did morph over those years, whenever I was dealing with someone who was prepared to be reasonable rather than just trying to erase all other POVs.

You insist that you're completely impartial, but you seem to have an axe to grind too -- you're FOR the diagnosis and against any mention of the controversy that it aroused. It's irresponsible to discuss DID without mentioning child abuse accusations, Satanic Ritual Abuse, recovered memory, etc., because the vast increase in DID diagnoses was inextricably linked with RM. You shouldn't present the psychological profession as wise and all-knowing by shuffling people like Bennet Braun off-stage. Perhaps the article should not cover them in the detail that the old one did, and perhaps there SHOULD be an article that covers the history in more detail, with only a few mentions here to point people in that direction. But erasing the controversy completely is itself a biased position. Zora 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, will you do one thing for yourself?

Quit telling me what I think, because you haven't got a clue and you always get it wrong.

I am 100% FOR relevant information and 100% against irrelevancy and sensationalism. That is my entire POV.

You know as well as I do that child abuse accusations, Satanic Ritual Abuse, recovered memory et al are the lunatic fringe of DID just as surely as Underwager and his ilk are the lunatic fringe against it. Which is why I have sidelined them to a relevant article called "Multiple personality controversy" to leave this article for an accurate definition of the DSM IV TR concept called DID and the the relevent, reputable, academic POV surrounding it.

Like it or not, the "psychological profession" ARE the industry standard in terms of mental illness and disorder. The popular media are not, nor should they be, because the infrastructure for their accountability doesn't even exist.

You say a lot about the "history" or the topic, and the "controversy" associated with the topic, but you seem to want to leave out all definition of what DID IS (as you did given a free hand)...that's not right. --Zeraeph 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to be pretty balanced, from where I sit. It talks about the "establishment" version of the disorder, and it makes pretty significant reference to the alleged controversy, fringy or not fringy.

Looking at the history, this mjformick person made some relevent contributions, no matter what your opinion of him/her as person is. S/he sounds like a jerk, but a clever jerk. And the changes that JennySue and some others have made seem to be coaxing the whole thing along quite nicely.

So, why are you guys still arguing? I don't get that? --Seriphim 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC): Yeah, that's pretty much how the article's been for a long time (I even said something similar much higher), rather good, but everyone in here arguing that it's awful.

One More POV

My problem with the current article is that it spends most of its time talking about the "controversy" over DID. The description of DID that *is* given (all about ego integrity) is a joke. Ego integrity? It says nothing at all about normal dissociation, which is something everyone experiences on a day-to-day basis. Nor does it talk about other forms of dissociation, such as post traumatic stress disorder. These are valid subjects for an article on DID. A *mention* of the "controversy" is perhaps valid, but that is already given in the "see also" section via a link. In my opinion, this is not about POV. This is about covering the correct subject in the correct place. This page is supposed to be about DID, not about the "controversy" around DID.

Imagine having a page on the Apollo moon landings that spends most of its time talking about how the landings can't be proved to have actually taken place and some people doubt it ever happened. Are there people with that POV? Yes. Does that belong on the Apollo page? No. It belongs on the conspiracy theory page, etc.

DID is recognized by the DSM. Period. If someone wants to stir up "controversy," let them do so on a separate page under a separate title. It is not a question of POV. It is a question of common sense. DID deserves to be covered seriously, with valid information presented, and without the "ego integrity" Freudian junk that is 80 years out of date, as well as without the "I don't think it really exists" stuff. --AutumnSensei 23 February 2006

Firstly, there is a certain imperative for decorum here on Wikidpedia that demands one be polite. Secondly, the POV that you are presenting is not very well informed. Dissociation depends completely upon the concept of ego integrity, a concept that is hardly out of date.

The idea of presenting the controversy up front is intended to balance an argument that is contested even within the psychological and academic community. The article presents the establishment viewpoint, then points to its counter-point. That is fair and balanced reporting.

The DSM is a guide. It is not a gospel. Further, the controversy is presented fully on another page. Here it is pointed out as a counter-argument for serious consideration. --Seriphim 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One more note: dissociation as it occurs in PTSD is a symptomatic dysregulation that occurs specifically within the context of Complex PTSD, not PTSD major. Further, the statement that dissociation is a state of mind that "...everyone experiences on a day-to-day basis" is patently absurd. Kindly show your sources. --Seriphim 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I found The Dissociative Identity Disorder Sourcebook (ISBN: 0737303948) to be a good book, easy to understand. Available at amazon.com. To quote briefly from that book: "Have you ever headed for a particular destination and fallen so deeply into thought that you missed your exit? ... These normal experiences are simply brief periods of daydreaming and loss of awareness that psychologists refer to as dissociation." This is what I meant when I said that everyone experiences dissociation on a daily basis. I don't feel my statement is "absurd." I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. However, I maintain that a well-written article on DID will mention normal dissociation, post traumatic stress disorder, and other forms of dissociation as related conditions and as a way of making the condition understandable to people. The lack of such information in the current article is a clear weakness. Basically, the current article talks about controversy a lot; it talks about ego identity; it says little to nothing about dissociation. The name of the condition is Dissociative Identity Disorder for a reason. Failure to cover dissociation is a clear weakness. --AutumnSensei 23 February 2006

"Have you ever headed for a particular destination and fallen so deeply into thought that you missed your exit? ... These normal experiences are simply brief periods of daydreaming and loss of awareness that psychologists refer to as dissociation."...that's hilarious. The Source book series is cute, but full of misinformation, and this is a prime example. No self-respecting psychologist or psychiatrist whom I have ever worked or been associated with in the past 20 years would go within 100 yards of such a statement.

As for your opinions on the article, by all means, write it, rather than just commenting on it. --Seriphim 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling Zeraeph

Are you still here to mediate? Who exactly is running the show here? Clearly, I am a newcomer to the discussion. Seriphim looks like he is too, unless he represents the departed spirit of Mjformica. The current article is really weak. The intro is okay, but there is no meaningful discussion of dissociation in place here. Practically the entire "body" of the article is about doubting the diagnosis. Personally, I find the talk about ego identity to be over my head. It might be all right for a textbook, but it seems far too academic, abstract, and conceptually vague for an encylcopedia entry. However, that is just my opinion obviously.... Looking for an objective voice to intercede here. Zeraeph? Anyone? --AutumnSensei February 23 2006

Hey, Sensei. I am not the ghost of the other guy. I agree with you that the language of the article is a bit high-flown, but mjformick certainly had some meaty content to contribute.

As for the Sourcebook material, I was not being critical of you, but of the Sourcebook series. They tend to be a bit light on substantial information...I know because I have one or two on my shelf. Some of the material is quite good. Some of it is nonsense.

Anyway, as for Zareph mediating, I don't see that there is a need for mediation, as (1) mediation is a Wiki-policy kind of thing, and, using that measure, there's nothing to mediate; and (2) I agree with you that the article spends too much time on the alledged controversy and not enough on the actual disorder. And (3), if you look back on my contributions to the discussion, you will find that, ultimately, I side with those (you) who are questioning the need for further argument over an article that has clearly begun to take shape and are suggesting somebody WRITE something meaningful. --Seriphim 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You rang sir? Sorry, I have this weird 3dimensional thing going on that sometimes intrudes into my virtual reality ;o) but I'm working on it and it gets less and less all the time...have to give careful thought before I reply --Zeraeph 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is that this entry be locked for editing. I've seen this done on other entries, citing vandalism as the reason. Given the "I'll delete yours if you delete mine" that's gone on, and what looks like a really long history of controversy here, I think it's valid to label the current state of the entry as "vandalised." (Maybe there's a state like "flamewar" that applies better. Either way....) Any changes to be made should be submitted to Zeraeph and/or Zora (or whomever) for review, and only they would have the ability to actually apply the changes. Without that level of control, I doubt that any real progress can be made with this entry. --AutumnSensei 24 February 2006

WHOA! I don't think it's got to the stage where that article needs locking. It's taking really good shape but needs a whole lot of that special Wiki-polishing that tends to happen when somebody drops by and brushes up a couple of sentences here and there.

Besides, I want to see Zora's article - posted below the existing one for discussion and merging wherever relevant, and whether "wherever relevant" winds up being "in other articles" or not, is really up to Zora...She can choose to impose irrelevancies again, or she can choose to present relevant, well substantiated information and I sincerely hope she will do the latter this time and force me to support the merging of every single word here, not because she has flattered me, or pushed my triggers, (as she too often tries to do here) but because every darn word of it is, objectively, too relevant, and too good to lose here, pretty much the way most of the stuff here already is.

I think she can do it, but only she can choose to do it. --Zeraeph 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Given that I see the current article as being broken, I think it's best that I move on. --AutumnSensei 24 February 2006

Archiving

Archiving to avoid dial-in "no fly zone"--Zeraeph 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Authorship...

My experiences

I don't want to be a healthy multiple, my alters can be programmed. Risperidone 50mg injection every 2 weeks, Amisulpride 200mg every night, Citalopram 30mg every morning. I had a profound experience. Over the last 2 months after a breakthrough, I have broken 3-4 weak alters, most are too strong. I hope medication will weaken them (12 year psychiatric history). Yesterday I lost consciousness and became disoriented for about 1 hour. Prior to this I felt I was in trouble. I put it down to denying the impending dissociation. I'm feeling positive. MR

Thanks, all

I just wanted to drop a note of thanks to everyone involved in making this article what it is today. In under a year, you've moulded what was once an opinionated slur riddled with irrelevance into one of the most in-depth and technical DID/MPD articles I've seen in any encyclopedia. It's encouraging to see clearly qualified contributors make such a huge improvement to an article. All your efforts are very much appreciated. Jdbartlett

I think it is even more opinionated now -- it's just that I haven't had time to work on it. Busy with Islam-related articles. But soon ... Zora 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jungian personae and links

I tried to fix up the paragraph comparing Jungian personae to MPD. That paragraph was difficult for me to understand and I hope I re-interpreted it correctly. While I don't necessarily think that all my people are Jungian personae, I have long thought that a word other than "multiple" or "multiple personality" should be used to describe the experience of those who don't fit the clinical criteria.

Sign your posts. Would someone kindly add the Auto-sign Template here...i don't know what it is. --Sadhaka 12:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that was me. I try to sign things, but I'm getting forgetful in my old age. --Bluejay Young 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer reveiw of another article

Good day.

I started a peer review on Infantilism and because some people within Age Play develope DID, forming a younger child like personailty, I am hoping some of the editors of this article will kindly help in the peer review.

Thank you in advance.

--OrbitOne 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ross’ new book

Regardless of whether the disorder is termed dissociative identity disorder or multiple personality disorder, it is in no way related to schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder are commonly linked in the minds of lay people, it is a misconception.

The above paragraph in the introductory section is obsolete. It should be modified or removed. Colin Ross has recently argued about a type of dissociative schizophrenia (see Schizophrenia: an innovative approach to diagnostic and treatment) [1]. —

—Cesar Tort 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is not required (seeing as we don't knows what causes either condition, it is not possible to say they are in no way related). However, we must be careful of citing someone like Ross a a source for statements such as these. He doesn't accept many mainstream scientific theories of such disorders, therefore quoting him as 'evidence' regarding what is and is not accepted by the mainstream is somewhat innapropriate. Rockpocket (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, as far as Colin Ross is concerned I agree fulsomely.

For the rest I cannot argue with you, but I DO think the article needs to make the point that, to date "split personality = schizophrenia" only exists in Hollywood somehow?--Zeraeph 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to pointing out that split personality and schizophrenia are currently considered seperate biomedical entities, however there must be a more elegant way of saying it that was already there (though i'm not entirely sure how). Rockpocket (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This opinion fails to grasp the rules of the DSM system. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria sets are phenomenological. They are not based on theories of causality (“biomedical entities”). Theories of causality are irrelevant to the reliability and validity of DSM disorders, as is the efficacy of treatment. For example, dissociation is a descriptive and phenomenological term in DSM-IV-TR. The dissociative disorder section is not based on a theoretical defense mechanism. The DSM-IV-TR meaning of dissociation is as scientific, observable and testable as any other term in the DSM system. —Cesar Tort 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure i follow. Irrespective of Ross's findings and whether you consider them 'biomedical entities' or not, does the DSM system categorise DID/split personality and schizophrenia differently according to phenomenological criteria? That is the point at hand. Rockpocket (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a common denominator in dissociative schizophrenia and non-dissociative schizophrenia: some patients of both groups hear voices. —Cesar Tort 04:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you answered the question! Both brain tumours and dehydration can lead to headaches, but despite the common denominator, they are classed as very different conditions. Do you know what the DSM says? Rockpocket (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know. I have a copy of DSM-IV-TR here with me. But since it’s a translation to Spanish, I can’t quote it. Go to the nearest library. This is my final word. —Cesar Tort 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My question was genuine, Cesar, not a rhetorical accusation. I do not know (and i really don't care enough to visit a library to find out) hence i asked you as i thought you would. I was simply trying to establish whether DSM classes them as different 'phenomenological' entities. If so, then that can be used to insert some comment about them being seperate. If not, then there is no justification for that. Rockpocket (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Ross Institute Link

Let me explain why:

The Ross Institute (and Colin Ross) does not particularly specialise in DID, so how is it relevant to DID? No other treatment or similar institutes are listed as internal links, even those that do specialise, therefore it is distinctly POV, and could even be considered a form of advertising to include a single, barely relevant, link.

There is already an external link to the Ross Institute, even if it is later determined to be a valid and acceptable reference (which hangs in the balance at present) one link per article is generally considered to be ample --Zeraeph 13:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Zeraeph. But wouldn’t a link to the Institute article rather than to the Trauma article be more relevant? I have visited the institute and have seen many inpatients with a dissociative diagnosis. —Cesar Tort 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort I am afraid your visit to the Institute would be "original research", and against policy, Trust me, if Wikipedia allowed of the things my eyes have seen, the the psych articles alone would be REALLY HOT (even if I witheld all mention of "firefights on the belt of Orion"), and FULL of wannabe psych gurus freshly crucified with their pants down.

Apart from, bless us and save us from a list of EVERYWHERE people have ever seen DID patients. Have you any idea how many places that might amount to? Worldwide? If you list one, you have to list 'em all, and, in practice, the only sensible way to do that is to create a seperate "List" Article (see: Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), so that the DID article is not overwhelmed.

The Trauma article actually makes a specific, relevant reference to the nature of DID, whereas a specific reference to the nature of DID would be irrelevant to the Institute article. --Zeraeph 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was only 9 hours at the institute in 1997. I wrote the above because I have just removed a reference to DID in the Trauma article (because it was duplicated after I wrote the Institute article). DID is not my specialty. Only child abuse is. —Cesar Tort 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just removed the Trauma link too, you are right, without that reference it's about as relevant as fishing --Zeraeph 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. At least I filled a little gap: there was mention to Ross’ DID book in the text but the bibliographical reference was missing a couple of days ago. —Cesar Tort 14:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Little check on Colin Ross (and his book) suggests that he might be more relevant, at a slight tangent, to the Multiple personality controversy article that can honestly use a few more references to qualified professionals? (Just noticed he is already mentioned there but in no real detail.) --Zeraeph 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My experiences II

I am writing to you with a few of my thoughts about dissociation. I have been talking to the WRENS and experiencing psychoactive drugs and mental techniques for the last 1-2 years. They are helpful but I also have hostile attacks from other people. I’ve read a lot about dissociation on the Internet, but my experiences don’t always seem to match DID. I once counted 20 major personalities and 30 minor, although I’m less aware of it now. I became very aware of dissociation at one stage. My personalities can be “programmed” with words, thoughts, emotions / moods and drug-induced states by myself and others, it seems to require concentration and can be unintentional as well as deliberate. My first breakthrough occurred 8 months ago when 2 girls I was talking to managed to “break” a personality. I’ve noticed “clearing”, wiping clear the programming on a personality, which I have learnt to do; “programming”, this is easier and less tiring than clearing and I use it to tackle negative programming; and “dislodging”, very difficult, destroys a personality, I’ve only managed to dislodge 2 of my own. I spoke to a girl who had been seriously sexually abused as a child and she taught me about “projection”. I can now project a personality onto someone else; it comes back in the end. I use it on hostile people to reflect back any unpleasantness they have inflicted on me; it’s easier, keeping me healthy is tiring and time-consuming. I let them deal with it. I also have personality states, healthy and unhealthy, which can be switched, but I don’t know much about it and I haven’t learnt how to switch them or cure it yet. I’ve got at least 2, possibly 4, I don’t know the mechanism or how it relates to dissociation. MR

Anon editor's contribution

I have removed the following contribution from an anonymous editor as it is unencyclopaedic, POV and lacking references. If there is anything of use in there, it should be heavily copyedited and sourced.

People with disassociative identity disorders generally develop some dominant dark hidden corners in their minds which might affect the functioning of the brain. Actually it is the mental interaction of different personalities/ego states. eg. A student trying hard to concentrate on his studies might not be able to do so if suffering with a DID. The harder he tries to concentrate, those hidden webs are disturbed as well which cause a lot of fluctuation and unstability. Such people avoid any sort of a company and end up as introverts, might be geniuses(as is the case with some of the introverts). Normal people have control over their minds but DID patients are controlled by their minds because in every situation they are caught between conflicting responses to stimuli. Such people tend to talk to themselves when they are alone. The other ego state becomes dominant whenever one is alone and it wants to be interacted with. Seen from an optimistic standpoint, DID patients enhance their mental capacities(not intelligence) and emotional quotient compared to normal people but the irony is that they are unable to put it to any good use. Such people should specifically see to it that they dont sit idle for a second and should be involved in some creative activity. They might feel bored pretty soon with that activity but its a trick that the other personality plays with their minds to keep its entity alive in them.

Rockpocket 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a Moment of Zen, anyway! --Bluejay Young 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't dissociation normal?

Driving down the street and 'spacing out' is normal, everyday dissociation. It seems like this article isn't clear on that. Why is this statement in there: "Dissociation describes a collapse in ego integrity so profound that the personality is considered to literally break apart." I'm not sure a discussion of dissociation per se needs to go on in this article, the word is clearly linked to a better article on the subject. I would also move the controversy section to the bottom, after diagnosis and treatment. Definitions, diagnosis and treatment is what most people who would be reading this will care about anyway IMO. P L Logan 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no proven scientific or statistical basis for believing that multiplicity is caused by dissociation. It is a theory that has been held by some psychologists for about a century. The statement you describe is in there because it is one of the many explanations for multiplicity invented by professionals and laypeople over the years. I tend to think of all theories of multiplicity, from "the mind fractures under stress" to "demonic possession", as holding about an equal amount of water. The truth is very little is still known about ego formation, let alone about how or why some people experience themselves as sharing their body with other minds. The statement should be attributed or taken out. --Bluejay Young 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

proposed changes

1) diagnosis: merge DSM criteria with other diagnostic issues and symptoms

2) if a definition of dissociation must be specifically mentioned, a link to the existing article seems sufficient.

3) separate out the DID in fiction part, moving it to near the end.

4) move the controversies section to near the end.

Proposed order:

Mention of where to find definition of dissociation (briefly, if needed)

Potential causes

DSM and other diagnosis criteria, including symptoms

Treatment--mention other hospitals (like McLean) here

Prognosis

Controversies

DID in fiction

see also

references

I think this might be clearer. Any suggestions/comments? P L Logan 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of condensing the intro also, as it's verbose and repeats itself a few times. Some of that information is repeated below (the depersonalization stuff).

A lot of this article doesn't have citations, which bothers me. Some of the external links are excellent, and might do for citations ... I have to go through and read the articles more closely.

Is it just me or are there echoes in here? LOL P L Logan 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I request more credible psychological, sociological & psychiatrical sources to be added, if anyone can spend some time working on this article. Many of the statements are not substantiated with a proper reference. As for me, cross-cultural and intercultural studies are of especial interest. Thank you very much in advance! Eli the Barrow-boy 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)