Talk:Pit of despair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Pit of despair is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Funny article

Is there any award that can be given out for funniest Wiki article? I was laughing my fucking arse off reading this. Classic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.68.27 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is! Go ask your mom: She got a similar one when i fucqed her ass and she shat herself when she came! Fucqing funniest thing i've ever seen. Another classic, i would say! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.66.9 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrored box

This is first description I've seen that includes a comment about mirrors. Do you have a source?

I will scan a photo of the isolation box used in the 3,6,12 month experiments.Rbogle 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

whoops. There was a small mirrored window for observations. I misread the sentence. Rbogle 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early infanticidal childrearing

This experiment is shocking; but very impressive from the psychological perspective. I wonder if someone has related it to Lloyd deMause’s observations and theories of primitive, cannibalistic human tribes? (in New Guinea some tribe parents still eat their babies). See the flaming controversy between anthropologists and psychohistorians in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing. —Cesar Tort 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. Its interesting that you say its an "impressive" experiment, as the general consensus (from both the animal rights lobby and a significant number of scientists) was that it revealed very little at great cost. I'm not sure i agree that it is entirely without merit, personally, though i concur that the cost/benefit is questionable.
I guess the problem with relating it to human behaviour is the inherent anthropomorphism applied to the experiment interpretation. Monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans. How we define 'depressed', 'happy' or 'disturbed' animals is simply an interpretation of their behaviour. Some natural primate behaviour would appear disturbing if a human was to do it. Moreover, clearly in animal models - even those with complex social behaviours - hardwired innate behaviour is much more influential than learned or adaptive behaviour. A common tactic in animal behavioural experimentation is attempting to directly corrolate it to human situation. People do it all the time, of course, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Still, even with these caveats, i agree that the data does appear to reflect the observed effect of childhood abuse in humans and its manifestation in later life. What interests me is the variation: when "placed in isolation [they] emerge badly damaged, and that some recover and some do not". This seems, to me, like very strong evidence for genetic variation playing a role. If you don't mind, may i ask (bearing in mind this is a controlled experiment i.e. the variables in terms of "abuse" and "recovery" are consistant) how would you interpret these differences in terms of the trauma model? I would have thought it unlikely they vary in terms of having an "enlightened witness". Thanks. Rockpocket 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Rockpocket, your assumption that humans and monkeys will behave differently when depressed is just an assumption, as is that monkey behavior is more hard-wired, if that's what you meant. And how we define "depressed" in humans is based on behavior too. If you visit your doctor and you're smiling, laughing, and rosy-cheeked, but tell him you're very depressed, he's not going to take you seriously.
Regarding the point that some monkeys recovered and some didn't, the sources for this experiment are frustratingly imprecise, so it's best not to extrapolate too much. I keep meaning to look for sources who speak about it in more detail, but I haven't gotten round to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi SV. You are correct, it is an assumption they will behave differently. As much of an assumption in assuming that they will behave the same when depressed. Ironically enough, i think we would each be making the exact opposite argument were we talking about testing drugs on the monkeys! Which says to me that there are key differences and there are key similarities - its all about interpreting them correctly. I agree that the criteria for "recovery" appears to be unclear and subjective, but then again, so is the whole experiment (subjective, i mean, in terms of attaching "meaning" to the behaviour of a species other than ourselves). I think the difference in attaching meaning to human conditions is that we all know what it feels like to be depressed or happy, and we can interpret that behaviour in others based on our own understanding of that. I have no idea what it is like to be a mouse or a monkey and thus interpreting their behaviour in terms of our personal understanding is clearly anthropomorphic. This isn't to dismiss the findings of the study, simply that direct corrolation with human psychiatric behaviour is misleading. Rockpocket 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rockpocket. The significant numbers of scientists you mention were not psychohistorians. I doubt animals can have an “enlightened witness” (in Alice Miller’s verbal sense). The fact that some people got mad in Auschwitz while others did not shouldn’t be interpreted as genetic predisposition. The disturbed prisoners may have had a previous history of abuse at home that made them more vulnerable. At least I know one Auschwitz survivor, Yakoff Skurnik, who published a book under a pseudonym. All of his family was killed in the Nazi camp but he had been treated so well during his childhood that he didn’t get mad there [1]. My guess is that if the monkeys who did it had stayed a little longer in the pit of despair they’d have gotten mad too. All of us have a breaking point, including animals. If I remember correctly, some psychohistorians have mentioned this monkey experiment, but I have to check my references again. It is not anthropomorphism to note that the mother monkey chewed her baby’s hands and feet and to compare this with the savages in New Guinea who eat their babies. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
RP, that's an old fallacy, the supposed inappropriateness of being anthropomorphic. We have no reason to suppose that, when a monkey looks depressed, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being looks depressed. Indeed, that's why we use them in psychology experiments. It's adding insult to injury to abuse them in order to gain information about ourselves, but then to say: "We can't assume you're anything like us at all." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And the fact that the experiment impressed me doesn’t mean I approve animal experimentation: I abhor it. Incidentally the Yakoff Skurnik book I mentioned has as a subtitle “A Mengele experiment”. (BTW, what means “RP”?) —Cesar Tort 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
RP is Rockpocket. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, thats why it is, in my opinion, a poor experiment in terms of informing human behaviour. What we learn about "ourselves" from this is debatable. I'm afraid i strongly disagree regarding anthropomorphism, SV. I hate to "pull rank" (it always smacks of intellectual oneupmanship, however in this case it necesary to explain my example) but i'm a behavioural geneticist by profession.
Let me give you the same example i gave Cesar the other day. I have a mouse that lacks a particular gene. This causes males to attempt to mate with other males instead of fighting with them [2]. The obvious anthropomorphic interpretation of this is that these mice are homo- or, more accurately, bisexual. Using your rationale, we have would have no reason to suppose that, when a mouse acts homosexual, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being acts homosexual. Your conclusion, therefore, would be that we had found a genetic basis for sexuality.
This is the assumption most people initially make. If it were true, i would be rich, (in)famous and have my own Wikipedia article. I don't. And thats because it is an entirely incorrect assumption and informs nothing about sexual attraction in the human sense. For most animals, mating, fighting (and probably suckling) is encoded in a hard-wired innate manner, through a neural mechanism that appears to be entirely lacking in humans. This isn't an assumption, it has been shown genetically, anatomically and developmentally, that this system is not present in humans. Therefore, this experiment informs nothing about human behaviour, except as an excellent paradigm for neural coding (which was why it was published in Science).
Its true that, if you are going to anthropomorphise, primates are your safest bet. Nevertheless, even primate behaviour has to be taken in context of natural behaviour and 'depression' and 'happiness' are not defined animal characteristics, just as homo- or bi-sexuality concepts aren't either (with the possible exception of bonobos). Assuming that an animal is "depressed" because it "looks" it, is no different from assuming my mice are "homosexual" because they look it. In other words,it is the first step towards a very, very shaky conclusion. Which takes me back to my original point, this experiment tells you about simian behaviour, which is a model for human behaviour with all the caveats that must entail. My concerns about these experiments are mainly on cost/benefit grounds, but humanistic over-interpretation comes a close second. For me the difference between the monkeys is interesting (albeit under-reported), because this is the best controlled data. Cesar suggests it is a threshold issue (if some were kept in the pit longer, they would have stayed "mad" instead of "recovering"). So my next, obvious, question is: what does your model propose is responsible for the different "madness thresholds" in the monkeys (bearing in mind every other environmental parameter is controlled)? Rockpocket 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading this reply, i realise it sounds like i'm saying monkeys should not be called depressed or happy. That is not what i mean. Clearly within the context of natural monkey behaviour (grooming, playing etc) a monkey can be more or less socially interactive. Defining this as "depression" or "happiness" is not incorrect as a term for relative behaviour compared to other intraspecifics. But it is relative, not absolute. It does not automatically follow that this "depression" is biologically or emotionally equivalent to human "depression" as we understand it. Suggesting that would be behavioural anthropomorphism and that is what i was warning against. The difference between the two are subtle, but important. And thats not to say that the experiments can't inform about human "depression", just that direct behavioural comparisons are presumptive. This paper for example, does make a correlation, but note it is not using the specific "depressive" behaviours themselves directly as the comparative parameter, but a putative biomarker of depression: 5-HT(1A) receptor binding potential. Admittedly Harlow didn't have the technology to do that, and it is not fair to criticise him for lacking what was technically impossible at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't interpret his data with appropriate caution. Sorry about the monologue, but hopefully i've made myself clearer now. Rockpocket 06:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the word "love" in Background

I believe that the word "love" should be changed to a word with less religious and emotional connotations, such as "parental care". 66.253.36.140 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious connotation??--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of word "psychosis"

I think that "psychosis" is a really loaded word to use in the article, because it implies, at least to my non-psychiatric mind, too much knowledge of the workings of a monkey's mind. According to Wikipedia, "Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired", and can we really say that about a non-human creature? If, OTOH, it is a term generally used by experts when describing this study, then I withdraw the objection. --JdwNYC 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the word the sources use, and there's no reason to suppose it's difficult to see when a monkey's thought processes and perception are severely impaired; at least, no harder than to see when a human being's are. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive quoting

In my opinion, this article has an excessive amount of quotes, and I feel that they are being used to dodge the NPOV rules. arguably the most grave offender is the conclusion, ending the article with a quote, particularly such a POV one, is never good Encyclopaedic manner. I'm adding the NPOV template for now, hopefully we can get a good NPOV rework without needing a major rewrite. Riffraffselbow 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going about this incorrectly, please feel free to revert the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riffraffselbow (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Disturbing

I found this quite disturbing. Should/Can it have a warning on it? User:CaptinJohn 09 Feb 2007

Wikipedia is not censored and if you look around, we have quite a lot of disturbing content with no warning labels. About the farthest we go is to "spoiler" warnings when an article might spoil a novel/movie/etc. for you.
Atlant 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also find it merely disturbing. The prolonged abuse and torture of monkey babies can hardly be explained as scientific research. About warning, I think one would be suitable. But rather than that, some backround of people who were in charge of this, and the details of this 'research' would contribute to the content of the article. Unfortunately, I didn't find any resources I could use.

Jesus christ, that's absolutely awful. It makes me want to vomit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.228.230 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that its upsetting, there is scientific merit in almost anything. Its potentially arguable that the most horrific of subjects could possibly net the most useful results. What if some type of research like this or something similar were to bring about information which describes the situations that lead to rape? And what if that data helped to eliminate it, or severely reduce its occurance? Wouldn't tangible results make the unfortunate things which led to them worth it at some point? The cliche comment of the ends justifying the means aside, don't they? JN322 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No. Not in this case. There were no hope for valuable information. There's important and valuable science that are done with animal testing that I support, but this is just animal cruelty... your arguments could be used for the testing in Nazi-Germany on human subjects. Sometimes you have to draw a line.--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally when someone immediately compares something they're not in agreement with to nazisim, I assume they do so because they cannot come up with any other valid argument. Making it comparable to "nuh-uh". JN322 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting experiment lengths

The opening paragraph states "Harlow placed baby monkeys in the chamber alone for up to six weeks", but the caption of the second photograph states "...after six months of total isolation". The citations are merely names of individuals, and I cannot establish the correct time period.

All references to experiment length should be deleted unless this can be corrected. 84.9.165.236 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They are different chambers. He left baby monkeys alone in various chambers for up to two years. The source indicate that the longest he left them in the Pit of Despair was six weeks. But you're right -- it's confusing and we need to clarify it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)