Talk:Recovered memory therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
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.
High This article has been rated as High-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.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] POVs/format/content/explanations in article

Do we have consensus on which POVs on RMT are sourced to WP:RS - not necessarily science source - RS showing significant existence of POV? (Can we leave the issues of format/content/explanations/weight aside till POVs are clear - please? ) Utmost brevity and single-minded attention on just listing POVs here will help. SmithBlue (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, would you rephrase it? Sorry if I'm being a bit dense here.... thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NOt dense at all - I was not clear - is there any POV not in the article that we can find a source for or is/are ther POV/s in article which have no RS, are non-significant. PLs list needed changes of this sort here. SmithBlue (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible mess

Ew, what an execrable page. I've removed some sections that looked totally unjustified, disputed, poorly sourced, contradictory and generally icky. From what I've seen of individual sections, this page is a mess. I'll try to go through it more thoroughly in the coming weeks. Oh, archived everything from January 4th or so back. WLU (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to restore some edited references in a much more scaled down form. I fixed some spelling errors and deleted a double reference.Abuse truth (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my spelling generally sucks when I'm typing quickly. Thanks for replacing the link to the letter by the ISST, that's a big help, though it'd be nice if they had their own wikipage. I've removed the quote and reworded a bit, and put a space between the end of the reference and beginning of the next phrase. I'm not loving my reword, but I'm trying to make it as compact as possible.
I don't know what I think about the inclusion of the random British news article - what does it add? I've moved it to a different part and and removed the accompanying text completely.
WP:AWW says try to avoid 'some people say' without a reference, I like to avoid 'some people/researchers/commentators/whoever say x' completely - I'd prefer a wikilinked person or corporate entity if they've their own page, otherwise a wording that avoids the 'some people' as it invites the inevitable 'so what, who are these people' question. Further, regards the Whifield reference, since I don't know who the publisher is (Health Communications Inc. doesn't sound like a RS to me, it's not a university press publication) I'd rather have a bit more info on what it says. I've tried at re-wording but the google books link doesn't seem to give me the page I need. WLU (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a couple of minor changes to make the sentences closer to their references. Whitfield co-edited a book "Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse" that was co-published simultaneously in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (which is peer reviewed) in 2001.Abuse truth (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Which makes that book more reliable, but not all his books. WLU (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing section

The following section I can't fix or even figure out - what is it trying to say? Is it an attempt to compare RMT to the mainstream approach to therapy? I find it incredibly confusing, doesn't seem to have a central point it is trying to prove, even the title is strange. Is it a criticism? Is it a compare and contrast? Is it an attempt to synthesize the literature to come to a conclusion? WLU (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Trauma model of psychopathology There are disputes among practicing psychotherapists, and among the general population, as to the prevalence of repressed memories and their later recovery. Practicing psychotherapists who believe in the scientifically mainstream trauma model of mental disorders, especially when working with patients diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder often encourage and assist patients in piecing together fragmented memories in order to de-associate behavioral reactions that are habitual but no longer necessary. Some psychotherapists believe that the theory of iatrogenic false memories being generated in a therapeutic setting has not been proven and overstates available facts.[1]It has been stated that the reality of repressed memories is extremely controversial.[2]In the book, Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law a reviewed of 43 studies on dissociative amnesia and traumatic memory showed a substantial minority of the traumatized individuals partially or completely forgot the traumatic event they experienced, and later recovered these events.[3]This is contradicted in a 2002 study by Pope.[4]Some believe research shows that trauma survivors can respond to pain by pushing it out of awareness. Some label this phenomenon dissociative amnesia or repression.[5]There are over 100 years of reports and descriptions of corroborated cases of recovered memory, including instances from times of war, torture, bereavement, natural disasters, and concentration camp imprisonment and sexual abuse.[6] The DSM-IV describes disorders that have diagnostic criteria for memory loss, including posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder.[7]

I have edited and re-written the section in question and have given it a new title, attempting to respond to some of the above queries.Abuse truth (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
An excellent re-write AT, it was much clearer what the paragraph was aimed at. Naturally, I still went at it hammer and tongs : ) Still, the re-write made it a lot easier to re-write in summary style and at least 907% clearer than what was there before. I removed the links to the Leadership Council - in most cases they were links of convenience to book contents, but since they were summaries of the books rather than direct quotations of the contents themselves, I didn't feel they were appropriate. Instead, I tracked down the ISBNs and used citation templates to link to the books directly. Also, I don't think the LC is sufficiently notable or reliable to justify a mention in the paragraph as either a stand-alone link or as a justification of any text. WLU (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the compliment. I made a few minor changes to add accuracy and NPOV. I respectfully disagree with your critique about the Leadership Council. I consider them to be an extremely reliable source. See http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/about.html for a list of their board members. These are all top people in the field. Though, it is probably better to cite the book in this case. Abuse truth (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. The board members does look pretty notable. Was there anywhere you thought the link should be added? We'll have to be careful how it's used but given that level of expertise, it could definitely be used for citing some basic info. WLU (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I support acceptance of the Leadership Council as a reliable source, after reviewing their site. I agree that it's prefereable to cite the original sources when available. In general, I don't see any reason not to cite Leadership Council when their information is relevant. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Is Extremely Biased

Although it may be true that there are 100 corroborated cases of recovered memories-- there are also far more cases where false memories have been proven to have been implanted by bad therapy or by poor criminal investigative techniques.

For the writer who chose to refuse to also mention the extensive docmentation of false memory cases-- this ommision can only be described as violent and grossly irresponsible writing. To be innocent and falsely accused is a horrible thing. It can destroy relationships and families of the innocent. Not something to be sloppy or rash about.

Anyone who would willfully disregard the overwhelming evidence that false memories do happen is an irresponsible and abusive person. Therapy should not have a cult-like dimension-- it should be subjected to rigorous science, and the result of careful science should not be ignored or shouted down. The lives and well being of innocent people depend on it.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though you may be correct, in order to add information to the page, it must be verified through the use of reliable sources. WLU (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WLU above. The research clearly shows that recovered memory is a strong and recurring phenomena. False memory cases and retractions have been questioned for their reliability and accuracy by several sources. False memory theories and data also need to be 'subjected to rigorous science' as well. Abuse truth (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] extreme POV

this article is extremely WP:POV and seems to have been hijacked by believers in 'recovered memory', which is not a concept accepted by all or most psychiatrists or scientists who study memory. Merkinsmum 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article with its 62 sources has been put together by editors with varying perspectives, according to Wikipedia NPOV and RS policies. RM's existence is accepted by a majority of reseachers. Abuse truth (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I tend to agree with Merkinsmum, although Abuse truth's most egregious BIAS has been reverted. It's probably true that RM's existence is accepted by a majority of researchers, but I strongly suspect its prevalence has not been. I, however, don't have access to the journals which AT is misquoting and misinterpreting, so I can't just blindly revert. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Please add reliable sources, remove information from unreliable sources, and fix misquoted and misinterpreted "information". It's all we can do. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the article being biased, as the term itself was coined by a biased organization with a political and legal agenda. That's why it's so hard to find references. "Recovered memory therapy" is not a recognized form of treatment, and the term "recovered memory" is not a medical term. However, there are reliable sources documenting the fact that memories can become unavailable due to trauma, and that later, those memories can surface. Most often, according to sources, that surfacing does not result from therapeutic intervention but occurs spontaneously or resulting from a triggering event.

This article should be focused on the activist, political, and legal uses of the term, not on the therapeutic aspects, because it's not a form of therapy, it's a term used as a lever in legal cases mostly. This article is not about "recovered memories", it's about the term "recovered memory therapy", that is a construct of activists. The medical/psychological approach to traumatic memories that are repressed or dissociated and later recalled should be addressed in the relevant articles, not in this one.

It might even be appropriate to merge this article with False memory syndrome, another term coined by the same organization, whose core claim is that FMS is caused by RMT. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The medical ideas about the loss and recovery of memory related to trauma is covered in psychogenic amnesia, but as that is a medical condition and article, WP:MEDRS applies and RMT/RM/FMS should be mentioned only tangentially in that article. The 'official position' on memory loss unrelated to organic trauma is psychogenic amnesia, recovered memory is a fringe position. The difficulty will be teasing out the two, as while PA appears to cover primarily the loss of memories about personal identity, situation-specific PA looks to be comparable at least on the surface. I do not look forward to the long, inevitable slog between sources on this one!! WLU (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In reply to AR, I have not misquoted and misrepresented anything. It is easy to check any of my sources. Their urls are listed clearly. I have attempted to make the page NPOV and accurate.
I disagree that "recovered memory is a fringe position."
See:
Recovered Memory Project
Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence: Research on the Effect of Trauma on Memory
http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/abuse/a/cooroborate.htm
http://www.jimhopper.com/memory
Recovered memory of childhood sexual trauma: A documented case from a longitudinal study
Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence: Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events
Consider This, Skeptics of Recovered Memory
Videotaped Discovery of a Reportedly Unrecallable Memory of Child Sexual Abuse: Comparison with a Childhood Interview Videotaped 11 Years Before
"Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate," by Alan Scheflin, Psychiatric Times 11/99, Vol. XVI Issue 11
Betrayal Trauma - The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse
Betrayal Trauma: Traumatic Amnesia as an Adaptive Response to Childhood Abuse
There are many articles on this topic. And PA and RM may be too closely intertwined to be separated. Abuse truth (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. Psychogenic amnesia is a medical condition discussed by the DSM and ICD classification systems. Recovered memory, as used by RMT and other organizations, is not. If RM is used as a synonym for psychogenic amnesia in a medical article, then it should be cited as that. If it is used in the sense of a deliberately supressed condition of memory which is inaccessible in ways that science can not explore, it's not PA and should not be on that page. I've received an e-mail from H. Pope with two full text articles by McNally discussing the differences between these conditions, though I've yet time to read them. Hopefully the clarification can be made on the page. PA could also be brought up as a possible medical collaboration on the medicine wikiproject or for clarification by some of the medically-minded and knowlegeable wiki editors. Three of those links appear to be medical journals, the remainder are trumped by medical journals and could be used only for cultural aspects. WLU (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to have a reliable source clarify them on the page. I brought this up on another page from a study by Chu.
Chu considers his study to be researching amnesia. He is comparing recovered memory and amnesia as connected phenomena when he states "amnesia for abuse memories" and "memory recovery." In the article, Chu states : "Participants who reported a period of complete amnesia for episodes of childhood abuse were asked about the role of suggestion in memory recovery" and "Many of the participants who had complete amnesia had made attempts to corroborate their recovered memories. Nearly all participants who reported physical and sexual abuse and who attempted corroboration were able to find some kind of verification."
It may depend on the researcher and their orientation in the RM debate as to the possible connection between the two. Abuse truth (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
WLU, just to note that Pope and McNally are long-standing affiliates of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and their emphasis on the fallibility of memory processes is disproportionate to the evidence. McNally, in particular, continues to promote the notion of "False Memory Syndrome" long after its credibility has been destroyed.
"Recovered memories" is just an outdated laypersons term for "forgotten" memories of child abuse. These days it's fairly infrequent in clinical literature, but it does not denote a particular "position" or "organisation". --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved your comment to the bottom - addressing it to me means no-one will confuse it with AT's comment. More important for me than who said what, is where it is published. If it's in a reliable source, a peer-reviewed journal of good standing, I don't care what their affiliation and beliefs are - it passes the muster of professionals and therefore represents some section of the mainstream. WLU (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The function of a reviewer is not to block the publication of views that the reviewer does not hold, but rather to ensure that submissions to a journal conform to standard academic practices, and that the logic of their argument is sound and suitably referenced. I've acted as a reviewer for a few journals, and I've recommended articles for publication that I passionately disagree with, on the basis that they were well argued.
Basically, peer-review doesn't mean "mainstream" or "accepted". I keep my critical faculties around when assessing the credibility of any source, particularly when that source is associated with a fringe activist group. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit - fixing ref and deleting OR

I have wikified a ref and fixed the url, deleting OR from the ref on "The reality of recovered memories." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian para deleted

The section on RMT in Australia is factually incorrect and misleading, and it's been deleted.

No source is provided for the statement "In Australia, the term has been in use among professionals for some years".

The Australian Counselling Association is inaccurately described as a "psychotherapists' peak body", and records of parliamentary debates in NSW and Queensland are inaccurately described as "government documents".

Meanwhile, a Victorian inquiry into the claims of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation vis a vis RMT is used as a source to support the statement that the term RMT is being used by professionals. In fact, the inquiry concludes the precise opposite - it states that there is no evidence that RMT is a form of therapy being practiced in the state of Victoria, if it exists at all.

The section also cites the statements of a plaintiff to support the claim that the term "repressed memory technique" is used within the Australian legal system. The term was, in fact, never used by a member of the judiciary in that particular case.

This entire section is false, misleading and POV, and it's gone. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COATRACK

Debates over recoverd memories and traumatic amnesia completely dominate this article. Whilst some acknowledgement of the controversy is relevant here, the fact that it takes up most of the article makes this a big WP:COATRACK. Debates over memory and child abuse are for other articles. This article needs to be specifically focused on the term "recovered memory therapy" - it's origins, it's history, it's uses.

I propose that most material not specifically relating to RMT, as a concept, be removed. The article can touch on the debates over recovered memories without getting completley overwhelmed by it. Moreover, the coatracking material is of a very poor quality. Journalistic sources are inappropriately used to support scientific propositions, whilst some sources simply have no relationship with the statements they footnote. The "legal issues" section appears to have been written by editors with no grasp of the legal issues regarding recovered memory evidence, mashing together criminal and civil law, and leaping between countries and jurisdictions.

Leave your thoughts here. We can talk it through and then look to reform this article, which, I think everyone would agree, is currently in pretty bad shape. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some big changes which are likely to get people's backs up, but I reviewed the existing material in the article, and it was mostly useless, poor quality coatracking about recovered memories. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that most of it is useless, but the history of RMT section needs to remain, and the last two sentences of your lead each constitute a BLP violation unless sourced. Also, DSM-IV doesn't have procedure codes. RMT would be a non-recognized procedure, rather than a non-recognized diagnosis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a line from the Water's source to better balance the source. IMO, some discussion of recovered memories needs to stay, since the article is about RMT and the concept of RMT is largely based on RM and their accuracy rate. How much should stay would be a good topic of discussion here. ResearchEditor (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed waters - it was an unpublished conference paper. If "By 2007, most psychological and psychiatric professional bodies had issued guidelines that outline a lack of scientific evidence for the concept of repressed memory, usually coupled with a caution against leading or 'persuasive' questioning designed to produce evidence of forgotten abuse", then the individual bodies should be cited specifically. I've found 4, in the professional guidelines section. It also placed statements in 'history' that should more accurately be placed in 'research', and adequately sourced. The debate is huge I believe, and extends to scientific literature, so journal articles should be used, not unpublished conference papers, particularly papers that cite no references and is from a conference on law, not psychology, psychiatry or memory research. WLU (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Overall, good edits. I have re-added the Crook courtesy link to the reference, fixed spelling and spacing issues, added one strong EL to attempt to balance the EL section, deleted two see also's not mentioned in the article, and deleted the adjective "feminist" from a reference as the word "chauvinist" or other descriptors are not used with other references. I propose that we delete the tag at the top of the page. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to track, as feminista.com has apparently not paid their registration fees, but the founder, and editor-in-chief of the site should be referred to as a feminist while quoting an article on that site. I cannot find "anti-porography". (The article should also be considered self-published, and not necessarily a WP:RS, but I haven't researched that completely, and I'm not sure a {{verify credibility}} tag is really appropriate yet.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that a Wikipedia editor has suggested that a feminist source must be explicitly identifed as "feminist".
I'm curious about this position. As RE notes, we don't identify sexist sources as "sexist". Nor do we identify left-wing sources as "left-wing", postmodern source as "post-modern. So why should a feminist source be treated differently from every other source? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it would be relevant that the site is a *feminist* *anti-pornography* site, as they have — interesting — biases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So feminism is a "bias", but other political orientations are not? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brain stains

I've removed the 'brain stains' SCIAM paper, it's mostly a single-person account, with vague statements about memory and recovered memory, and the main focus is on how apparently false memories can have actual effects. There's a spot for it I think, but better re-inserted once the page has been cleaned up (and better if similar information can be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal). It's here, and here is the rebuttal from ISSTD, though it's mostly about DID with only one mention of RMT. WLU (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue emphasis on controversy

References to "repressed memories" as "extremely controversial" contain five references, three to the same author, Richard McNally, who is a long-standing proponent of "false memory syndrome". Two of the other references go to authors who support the notion of repressed memories, but who have written articles detailing the activities of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

The emphasis of this article on controversy is undue, and an example of coatracking. I'm going to try and prune it back. The article does not reflect the state of the research evidence, but rather a set of media controversies from ten years ago stirred by the the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and it's affiliates.

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But there is controversy, and there should be something on it. (In fact, this article should only be about the controversy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that we should talk about the controversy, as I've said previously on this page. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also a lot of weasel words in this article that I've trued to prune back e.g. conclusive statements that research studies have "found" that false memories of sexual abuse can be implanted iatrogenically, linked back to studies that do not find this in any conclusive way. I've tried to reform these as well. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That isn't a sufficient explanation for this mass deletion of sourced material. Please be more specific. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this was excessive. I have reverted the edit, and hopefully there will be consensus to keep most of that material. forestPIG 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've written extensively on this over the last few weeks, but if you want a point by point blow, let's start from the top:

- The intro repeats itself in relation to the role of the FMSF in inventing the term, and then segues quickly into research evidence on recovered memories. I've relocated this research evidence under the "history" section, since it's relevant, but not in the intro.
- Deleted first para in "history" section. It restates (for the third time in six sentences) the role of the FMSF in inventing the term. I've shifted the second sentence into the intro, since it's a reasonable and accurate summary of the manner in which RMT has featured in the literature.
- I've deleted the reference to Courage to Heal. This book has featured prominently in FMSF literature as being somehow responsible for large numbers of false allegations of child abuse. There is no empirical evidence that this is the case. This is the first of a number of examples where the speculations of the FMSF are being reproduced in this article as fact.
- I've deleted the references to the Time article and the Feminista article. There are, literally, hundreds of newspaper articles that use the term RMT, so why have these two been singled out? They are both over a decade old. It is worth noting that mentions of RMT in the popular and academic press have dropped below the radar over the last ten years.
- I've stated above why the statements about "repressed memories" being "controversial" is poorly sourced, inaccurate and an exmaple of undue weight. It was controversial in the media for a period in the 1990s, but it is not a subject of particular controversy today, and there is a very substantial body of evidence supporting traumatic amnesia for sexual abuse.
- I've also deleted various weasel words - claims that repressed memories are "pseudo-science", references to psychotherapists practicing RMT when the article has previously stated that there is no such practice, references to "false memories" as conclusively proven when the research evidence is highly speculative.
- In general, this article has given undue weight to the very small number of researchers who have aligned themselves with the FMSF. FMSF founding member Richard Ofshe invented the term RMT, and he actually lies in his original work, claiming that RMT is a recognised term in psychology when he invented the term. Using this term as any kind of segueway into the debate on recovered memories is an example of coatracking and should be discouraged.

Hope that is detailed enough. If you disagree some of these changes, then please revert those, rather then the whole thing. This article is in need of serious overhaul, and we need to take a fairly broad brush to it before we can refine it back to something vaguely approaching a balanced and reasonable overview. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with the recent edit made by Biaothanatoi. IMO, speculations should not be presented as fact and we need to be sure we do not provide undue weight to minority views. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the following phrase, which is not sourced and OR. "It has frequently been used by those who believe that recovered, dormant and repressed memories are not reliable, potentially dangerous and very likely to be iatrogenic false memories created by psychotherapists. Many skeptics believe the underlying science of these phenomena is pseudoscientific." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)