Talk:Sensory deprivation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
Talk archives for Sensory deprivation (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 >

Contents

The five sensory deprivation techniques

The second part of the article should be deleted. It talks about 'sensory overload' not sensory deprivation. --CJWilly 15:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur, subjection to noise is sensory deprivation ?? I think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.18.154.166 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. To my understanding, the effectiveness of sensory deprivation comes from its "boring" of the senses. At any rate, while one is alive, how can one truly be deprived of the senses? Even if you are staring at nothing but blackness, there is still the perception of that blackness, with no deviation in the visual field from that blackness. I say that seeing nothing but red, or any other homogenous color, would qualify as sensory deprivation. Similarly, I maintain that white noise does the same, in terms of removing all deviation from a homogenous perception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malenkylizards (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, someone could potentially subject a victim to such loud music that they become permanently deaf. The same could be used to blind someone. The complete lack of sight and hearing thereafter would qualify as sensory deprivation, I would imagine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.8.147 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think sensory deprivation is when the inputs of the senses are made static to where it seems that there is no input at all. The purpose is to deprive the senses(opf what they normally want), not kill them. The0208 00:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There are separate forms of torture that deal with overloads. Permanent damage from overloads and other forms of torture are the intended effects of those forms of torture, but are not in themselves sensory deprivation, as sensory deprivation, as you can see from the picture, is a specific practice and form of torture, not an effect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.105.208.27 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is not about torture but "sensory deprivation" as defined by the European Court of Human Rights. Philip Baird Shearer

The article says:

European Court of Human Rights trial "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" ... These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques ... Commission's establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of:
(c) subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise;

Others are of course entitled to their POV of what is or is not "sensory deprivation" , but the ECHR ruled that "subjection to noise" is a "sensory deprivation technique" in its ruling, their POV trumps most others. Further as the section is titled "The five sensory deprivation techniques", a term used by the ECHR, and it is is referenced for anyone who wishes to check up on the original source to confirm this, the section should stay. Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Actually they seem to have ruled that it it is either a "sensory deprivation" or a "disorientation" technique, so perhaps you could point to where they say which ones are which?

The article's main source of information seems misleading to me since the court seems to be stating that the techniques could be either "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques. Which ones are which? The two terms don't seem to be complete synonyms (check WordNet for example). Disorientation seems to mean something different than sensory deprivation. The court is probably lumping these two terms together in order to describe the aggregate of tortures that were carried out in a series of specific cases. It does not follow that the two terms are full synonyms. Or if they are, perhaps someone can supply examples from psychology literature, or dictionaries showing they really mean the same thing and are not just related phenomenon. It seems fairly plausible that sensory deprivation could produce disorientation, but there are other ways to become disoriented than sensory deprivation. If I'm disoriented from a fever, or other situation does it mean my senses were deprived? I don't think so. What senses are being deprived in the text about having lights switched on and off and having irregular feeding times? It seems they're trying to isolate people from an idea of time or their circadian cycle while making them tired and disoriented, but not particularly by depriving their senses. Perhaps they're trying to confuse or disorient people, but I don't buy that disorientation=sensory deprivation.

If these terms mean different things, but are related then it would make sense to write seperate articles about each term and link them as related ideas rather than lumping them together in a confusing and probably inaccuate way.

Sources?

Can anyone cite sources supporting the claim in the article that sensory deprivation leads to depression, etc? Threepounds 03:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern Use

I think modern applications and methods of sensory deprivation techniques would be an appropriate part of this article. I'm going to start work on this section unless someone sees a good reason not to.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

effects of.

well tom clancy's novel cardinal of the kremlin has a vivid description and presumed resulting mental dialoge which i thought was pretty good. the point being sensory deprivation in its true sense is maddening boredom and aloneness. add guilt and fear to it and you may get what you want. but I got here by a link from other place and was , am amazed to see what we are foing to people on guantonamo. what the fuck is this country coming to?we know many people were sold to the cia by afghan triba;l gangs for a couple hundred and the cia knows this too. I think this is just experimentation with a people that they can get away with it.but its future application scates me as it brings up you know what, "recalicitrant citizen conditioning re training" and this debate on torture shouldnt be a debate, we cant torture as a common way. but of course we do anyways. in many prisons but this political imprisonment and knowing they are just common mid easterners by cia is example of who is in control of our govt and it aint us and it aint good. andit aint god—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtiml (talk • contribs)


was there any article/editing related point to this rant?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. Why should there be a point involved? Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is deprivation of sleep a type of sensory deprivation ?

What exactly am I missing here ?

That sleep isn't one of the five senses? Raleigh rosscoe

Any particular reason why you choose not to time/date stamp your post? Talk page procedure is generally accepted as four tildes (~~~~) which results in a date-time and username signature. Sleep deprivation can be used as a part of sensory deprivation though as it is used to distort a person's senses. When you are sleepy you see things less clearly, do not feel as responsively, generally are unresponsive to certain stimuli.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Other views on sensory deprivation

I have just added an "Other views on sensory deprivation" section to this article. In the summary to a 2006-03-15 06:45:19 revert Philip Baird Shearer objected, saying "It was the commision not the court, what pressure groups think is not strictrly relevent to the ECHR ruling". I have corrected the reference in the text to refer to the European Commission of Human Rights, as per Shearer's comment. However, I disagree with the rest of his justification for removing this information.

What other groups (whether they're "pressure groups" is POV) may think regarding sensory deprivation is very relevant to this article, which you may notice is not titled "European Court of Human Rights Views on Sensory Deprivation" but "Sensory Deprivation". So, their views should be included as per WP:NPOV. -- noosphere 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has been abused a lot lately. Do not include a view just because it is opposing. You must provide evidence that the source is credible, or in this case that the source holds a substantial amount of clout and may be considered an authority on this subject or in general. Also, does this group satisfy notability requirements? Regarding the google search link... those are a very bad idea in all situations. They can change rapidly depending on internet climate and do not really tell the user anything. It is equivalent to stating "look up your own sources if you dont believe us" and is completely counter to WP:CITE--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

European Commission of Human Rights' ruling regarding sensory deprivation being a form of torture comes from the Yearbook of the European Conventions on Human Rights (1976) pages 512, 748, 788-94, which is also quoted in pages 91-92 of Nigel S. Rodley's The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law. Nigel S. Rodley is a member of the UN Human Rights Committee. The first edition of his book, according to its publisher Oxford University Press, is the "authoritative text in this area".
This ruling is also cited in Chapter 19 of the Supplementary Material for David Weissbrodt's, Joan Fitzpatrick's, and Frank Newman's, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process (3d ed. 2001), available at the University of Minnesota, here.
According to Wikipedia's article on the European Court of Human Rights, the European Commission of Human rights was created in 1954, and "prior to the entry into force of Protocol 11, individuals did not have direct access to the Court; they had to apply to the European Commission of Human Rights, which if it found the case to be well-founded would launch a case in the Court on the individual's behalf." (according to the Wikipedia European Convention on Human Rights article). Thus the Commission judgement regarding sensory deprivation is as notable as the Court's opinion (which is presently the only one represented in the article).
Now, the Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights is definitely less notable than either of the ECHRs, but it is not just some blog to which anyone can post an opinion. They're notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia's Human Rights portal, mentioned in a PBS article, and have even given testimony before Congress on human rights issues. So here also, if they're notable enough for Congress, I'd say they're notable enough for Wikipedia.
As far as the google search goes, you're right. It shouldn't be used as a citation. I'll remove the google reference from the article and look for more specific sources. -- noosphere 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights' "expert... [on] questions relevant to torture"[1]. As such, at least to the extent the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is notable enough for Wikipedia (and it is, having its own article), their expert's opinion regarding what constitutes torture is relevant to whether sensory deprivation should be considered torture and thus be included in this article. -- noosphere 07:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Philip Baird Shearer has just deleted the entire "Other views regarding sensory deprivation" section, summarizing it with a single sentence: "The Commision stated that it 'considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture'". The reasons given by the Commission for designating sensory deprivation as torture were simply deleted outright. He also completely deleted the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, as well as that of the Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights. This was done without even an attempt to justify the deletions, so I have reverted it. -- noosphere 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is going to become a habit. PBS has once again deleted an enitre paragraph that detailed the findings of the European Commission on Human Rights and reduced it to a single sentence. Instead of a description of why the ECHR considered sensory deprivation to be torture, he now has the article saying only that it did consider it torture, and qualified it by saying the decision was overturned on appeal.
I actually don't mind the qualification. That's a positive contribution. More information is better. However, the repeated deletion of content is really getting out of hand. I respectfully request that you cease and desist deleting this information. Even if the decision was overturned on appeal does not mean that it has any less right to be in the article than the rest of what's in here. It is verified and relevant. Therefore it meets Wikipedia policies and can not just be deleted on a whim. -- noosphere 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
PBS had also deleted five references regarding the negative effects of sensory deprivation, again without justification. These have now been restored. Ooops those weren't deletions but just moves of sources in to the reference section. Sorry about that. -- noosphere 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph on the commision in the section "Other views regarding sensory deprivation" because it already mentioned in the previous section "The five sensory deprivation techniques". This article does not need the full quote for the commision because:

  1. One sentence in this article is enought as the commision's consideration.
    • It was overturned on appeal.
    • The final ruling is only one sentance long.
    • Whatever reasons the commision gave, were not strong enough to stop their consideration being overturned on appeal.
    • In all cases one emphsises the higher court's ruling, as that is the one which sets the precedent and has the force of law.
  2. It is available from the sources.
  3. It is quoted in full on the page five techniques which is linked provided in the article section "The five sensory deprivation techniques".

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wimsical

With a few thousand years of history and 20,000 cultures practicing torture (of many forms) why is the US and the West the only cultures specifically showcased?67.166.148.141 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay image

Someone has added an image of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay with the caption:

A prisoner at the United States Camp X-ray facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba being subjected to sensory deprivation, through the use of ear muffs, visor, breathing mask and heavy mittens.

This is really reaching! Obviously the person who added the image wants to be able to accuse the US of using sensory deprivation, because I can see no other reason to add the image. It clearly is not an image of sensory deprivation. Counting them off:

  1. Time: Sensory deprivation, as our own article states, is quite pleasant and relaxing for short periods. It is only (alleged) to become harmful after prolonged periods. I am not able to find a definitive answer to how long constitutes "torture" (see below regarding references), but our isolation tank article states that people regularly undergo even that extreme form of sensory deprivation for pleasure for periods of an hour, while periods of tens of hours have been undertaken for intellectual curiosity (and received generally positive reports). One might or might not agree with such a positive view, but clearly mild sensory deprivation for a few minutes or even a couple of hours is simply no big deal. Yet this photograph is of detainees in a temporary holding area during transit, where they would have been held only for minutes.
  2. Ear muffs: no-one would say something so silly if he had ever actually used such muffs. As one of the millions of people around the world who use this type of ear muff very often for work or sports, I can tell you they do not cut off hearing! They mute sound somewhat (especially very intense sounds, which is their purpose), but unless there is a lot of background noise you can still carry on a ordinary conversation. I suspect the real reason for the muffs is to prevent detainees from whispering to each other; with the muffs on, any conversation will have to be held at a level that the guard can easily hear. Or, since this is a temporary stop during transit, they may simply still have them on from their time in a vehicle (many military vehicles and aircraft are extremely noisy inside, and earmuffs are required as an OH&S issue.)
  3. Breathing mask: It's an ordinary disposable dust mask, as worn all day long by millions of tradesmen around the world. It doesn't inflict any sensory deprivation; it has only a slight effect on ease of breathing, and almost none on sense of smell. I bet it makes it hard to bite or spit, though.
  4. Heavy mittens: how exactly are these meant to deprive senses? The entire tactile surface of the body, other than the fingers, is still exposed to its full environment. The fingers are slightly separated from that environment, but can still feel general shapes and can easily touch one another, which couldn't have occurred if gloves had been used instead of mittens. However it is very hard to use any sort of small tool or weapon while wearing mittens! Once again, this is obviously a restraint measure which someone is stretching to claim is sensory deprivation, despite not actually blocking any senses.
  5. Visor: OK, I'll sort-of grant this one. I'm not sure what type of goggles those are, but they look like gas welder's goggles, which are not quite completely blacked out, but dark enough to make vision difficult outdoors and approximate being blindfolded if indoors. Blindfolding is a common military restraint measure (can't attack what you can't see), but a pretty poor sensory deprivation technique when all the other senses are working fine, as they are here.

I think this image should be removed as it simply does not depict what is being claimed. --144.138.137.72 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says it can be used as torture, althrough says it's dubious... Therefore I believe until that dispute is solved, this image could continue, since it's the only sensory deprovation image in the article and it shows it as torture quite well... Also, US is not just the good guys knights in shiny armour saving you from the evil axis (that US say who is evil), there are plenty of news about tortures in prision involving US... 200.230.213.152 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The article says ... it's dubious. I added the dubious tag, specifically to have this discussion. So far, no one has offered any justification to suggest this image is correct or should stay, so unless someone comes up with something, I will shortly remove it. it's the only sensory deprovation image in the article The problem is that it is NOT an image of sensory deprivation. There is no point including any image at all, if that image is wrong! There are lots of real sensory deprivation images we might use; the only problem is finding one that can be included under the GPL. Possible examples include: woman in an isolation tank (with lights on so a photograph can be taken); another woman in an isolation tank; 18th century "tranquilising stool" for psychiatric patients; early (1951) experiment in sensory deprivation; John C. Lilly in his lab. Also, US is not just the good guys knights in shiny armour saving you from the evil axis. I couldn't care less about the US. I'm not American, and I don't particularly like them. I was only wondering if that was the motivation for including this irrelevant image. -- 144.138.137.211 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is much reason in doubting that it is torture; however, what seems to be a problem here for some is the mention of the USA name. Perhaps just saying "in a military detention camp" or "in camp x-ray"; or just removing the link to USA and leave USA as plain text so that it doesn't catch attention. Deciding if the picture illustrates torture or not is important too, but it seems less controversial.--164.77.109.190 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so. My problem is not the mentions of USA. It would be just as bad if the caption simply read "a prisoner being subjected to sensory deprivation". The problem is that it is not a picture of a prisoner being subjected to sensory deprivation. It is a picture of a newly arrived prisoner in improvised restraints and/or safety equipment made from ordinary work safety equipment, all of which was removed immediately after the picture was taken. My other problem is that this article seems to be at present edited entirely by people who don't actually know anything about the subject, or else they would all have been saying "WTF?" when they saw that picture. I also am not expert; I said "WTF?" when I saw that picture simply because it looks a lot like me in my work equipment at a former job, and I sure didn't think I was being subject to sensory deprivation (mainly because all my senses were still receiving inputs!) Since then, I have pored over all the references I could find, and I think I now know enough to be slightly appalled by the entire article (but not enough to authoritatively rewrite it.) -- 144.138.137.211 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


On the contrary: the image should be kept as is. No one is "accusing" the U.S. of anything. How would it be an accusation if the U.S. has admitted it as fact? See the following BBC news article. The most important issue here is to keep Wikipedia objective and truthful. Covering something up because it doesn't fit a particular reader's image of what the U.S. should represent, or being concerned about how the viewership might handle something is not conducive freedom and accuracy of information. In other words, this is not a propagandist page. Goochiegirl 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See the following BBC news article. You mean the one in which someone claims the pictures depict sensory deprivation, and the US Government denies it? The most important issue here is to keep Wikipedia objective and truthful. That's exactly right. And at present, this article isn't objective and truthful, it is passionate and committed and full of misinformation. It is dominated by a discussion of the five techniques, which already had its own article and is not actually sensory deprivation; yet it includes almost no information about actual sensory deprivation. It includes numerous references, most of which turn out to not support the claims from they are linked. It includes a photograph of a scene which one (unnamed!) person has once (incorrectly) described as sensory deprivation; yet it does not include any of the very many pictures of genuine sensory deprivation experiments which are universally accepted as such. I couldn't give two hoots whether it is accusing america of something, but I do care that most of the article is wrong, misleading, or irrelevant. -- 144.138.137.211 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Whilst looking at the above, I also checked through the references to see if there was any consensus on how long sensory deprivation must be continued before it becomes harmful. I was more than a little surprised by what I discovered. Note that since quite a lot of people voluntarily undergo sensory deprivation for pleasure or relaxation, the claim that it is tantamount to torture rests on the claim that it becomes much worse when continued for prolonged periods. OK, that seems reasonably plausible, but one wonders "how long is too long?" Fortunately the statement extended deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and antisocial behavior. has a footnote which leads to a series of 6 external links providing the evidence of this. Or do they? Let's look in detail:

  1. First link, http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf (136 kB PDF) is not a peer reviewed scientific study at all, it is an extract from the defence expert's claims in a court case. (As scientific research, it has obvious severe problems. For example, many of the symptoms noted by Grassian are things likely to increase the odds of an inmate being sent to "the hole", e.g. violent fantasies. Grassian makes no attempt to distinguish between cause and effect for any of these "symptoms".) Worse, Grassian's article is not about sensory deprivation at all, it is about solitary confinement. Even if we allow that solitary confinement is "sort of like" sensory deprivation -- which is a very severe abuse of the terminology -- Grassian does not suggest any distinction between harmful and harmless (or beneficial) solitude. (Clearly, moderate amounts of solitude are not psychologically harmful, and in fact many people crave solitude and privacy in varying degrees of moderation). Further, Grassian's observations seem to be based on fewer than a hundred cases at just two institutions. Finally, despite Grassian claiming that there is a "specific syndrome", the symptoms of harmful solitary confinement alleged by him do not correspond particularly well with the list of symptoms claimed by our article. However, Grassian does allude (on page 9 and in Appendix C) to several sensory deprivation experiments conducted from 1956 to 1968. Grassian's (clearly selective) quotes from this research are essentially the closest we get to a primary source on this subject in all of our references. Nevertheless, they hardly support the claims from our article. A few observations from these sections are illuminating:
    • Firstly, it is clear that responses to intense sensory deprivation vary considerably. Some people find it quite enjoyable, others find it irksome but not awfully distressing, a few panic and "crack up". Clearly then, it would not seem to be a particularly effective form of interrogation, although it might be useful for quickly identifying psychologically vulnerable individuals who will be more responsive in interrogation.
    • Secondly, it is interesting to note that most of these experiments were conducted in psychiatric hospitals. Clearly there may be some difficulty distinguishing between sensory deprivation phenomena and pre-existing conditions. It seems that beginning in 1965, efforts were made to screen out subjects with existing psychiatric conditions; but from that date, Grassian's listed reports of interesting symptoms includes only patients who were known to have pre-existing illnesses.
    • Thirdly and of particular relevance to our article, even these few brief quotes do not support the symptom list suggested in our article:
      • Various symptoms such as "delirium", "stupor" and "anxiety" are listed (along with boredom, daydreaming and hallucinations) for those undergoing sensory deprivation, but without any sign of being lasting effects. (How, exactly, do we distinguish between "stupor" and someone dozing off in the quiet, warm tank? We could say "hello, how do you feel?" but then there would be no more sensory deprivation!)
      • By the way, in this context "hallucinations" does not necessarily mean pink elephants serving tea. Most healthy people in a totally dark room will almost immediately start to hallucinate floating points of light. That's just how the optic nerve works. These effects require profound sensory deprivation; a simple blindfold will not work because too much light leaks through it.
      • The occasionally observed effect of heightened anxiety was strongly affected by psychological preconditioning. For example, if the researchers positioned a "crash cart" near the tank, pointed out a "panic button" inside it, and advised the subject to use the panic button as soon as anything "went wrong", the subject was much more likely to suffer anxiety when in the tank. Well, duh. This is just simple suggestibility, and the tank is nothing but a prop, like using a photocopier as a lie detector.
      • In these few short quotes from actual experiments, all of the effects which last beyond the time in isolation were reported solely about individuals with existing mental illnesses. There is not a single report of a healthy person suffering any adverse effects afterward.
    • Finally, the appendix is the only part of any of these "references" which comes close to answering my original question. In a 1950s mental hospital, one study involved six days of sensory deprivation, and two subjects developed paranoid psychosis (hmm, someone locks you in a dark box for a week and you think he's out to get you...) for which they were given electroshock therapy. However all subjects had pre-existing mental illnesses and it isn't said how many were subject to this "therapy" before two became worse for it.
  2. Next link, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/140/11/1450 is available to paid subscribers only (which is unacceptable for Wikipedia references, I thought), but its title suggests that it, too, is about solitary confinement not sensory deprivation. It is also by Grassian.
  3. Third link http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/1/124 (leads to a 271 kB PDF) is also about solitary confinement. It refers to psychiatric complications of multi-year periods of solitary, and finds that some people are severely affected and others not at all. It alludes to sensory deprivation only once, citing two studies from decades ago. These very brief citations do not speak to the claims under discussion.
  4. Fourth link http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12794.html is some sort of editorial, not a scientific paper. It is much longer on politics and law than medicine. More importantly, it doesn't so much as mention sensory deprivation.
  5. Fifth link, http://www.karenfranklin.com/topix11-segregation.html is also discussing solitary, not sensory deprivation. It is also just an essay (or more of a note, really) with its main reference being the Grassian paper already discussed above.
  6. Last link, http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/2/153 is also discussing solitary confinement rather than sensory deprivation. More particularly it is a socio-political essay about legal and social forces surrounding Death Row, which touches very briefly on our old friend Dr. Stuart Grassian. Sensory deprivation is not mentioned but its conclusions about Grassian and the effects of severe solitary confinement are actually somewhat skeptical and do not support the Wikipedia claims it is being cited to support.

My conclusion is that most of these so-called "references" do not even address the subject under discussion. (There may be some sort of relationship between solitary confinement and sensory deprivation, but it is not particularly direct and certainly cannot just be assumed.) Of the few small scraps which do touch on the matter at hand, they simply do not support the claim that extended deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and antisocial behavior. Some subjects experience temporary anxiety, but usually only if they are preconditioned for it, and there is no evidence that the sensory deprivation is involved in any way except as a prop. If sensory stimuli are very strongly attenuated, most experience hallucinations (not after extended periods, but after a few minutes) but this is a typical response of the human senses rather than evidence of psychosis, and vanishes as soon as sensory input is restored. All other reported symptoms seem only to have appeared in persons with existing psychiatric illnesses.

Hmmm. When I started my little bit of research (because I was somewhat astonished about another editor describing the protective gear I have worn at work as "sensory deprivation"), I thought the basic idea was sound but just wanted to sort out some details. Now after 4 hours of pouring through the "references", I have become extremely skeptical. I am beginning to think the whole thing is little more than an urban legend, with perhaps a faint kernel of truth. -- 144.138.137.72 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite required

I browsed to this article from somewhere else a couple of days ago, with few pre-conceived notions but generally believing the "common knowledge" on this subject. I stopped for a while to criticise an image which -- in my opinion -- is totally incorrect. In the process, I found myself actually reading a little of the research on this topic. Now, a couple of days later, I have come to the conclusion that this article is doing little more than disseminating urban legends, and needs to be totally rewritten.

For a start, we need to more carefully define "sensory deprivation" because the term is currently used in several different and inconsistent ways, viz.:

  1. Moderate or partial loss of inputs to one or more senses is a common problem in many areas of life. It is somewhat disorienting, to a degree dependent on the amount of information lost and how much is presently required to understand the local environment. See also: glare, light pollution, noise pollution, tinnitus, etc. etc.
  2. Total (or as close as possible) loss to all "five" senses (7 including proprioception) is established with elaborate apparatus such as an isolation tank. This is what is most usually understood by "sensory deprivation". This process is used as an aid to relaxation and meditation, and its proponents claim that it is quite beneficial. (It would be nice to get some hard data on measurable effects on stress levels, such as blood pressure.) Similar (but less extreme) aids to relaxation include earplugs, sleep masks, relaxation tapes (whether meditation music, white noise machines or CDs, or tranquil forest sounds), and zafus.
  3. Profound loss (as in 2, above) for extended periods is alleged to have severe psychological effects. This may or may not be true, but my own little literature survey over the last couple of days suggests that most if not all research on this topic is very dated, is not scientifically controlled, and confounds sensory deprivation with known mental illnesses or psychotropic drug use. In fact in a lot of this early research, the actual point of the experiments (e.g. by John C. Lilly) was to produce hallucinations through hallucinogenic drugs, and the sensory deprivation was solely intended to improve hallucination induction by removing exogenous stimulation. Can we find any acceptable research to support the claims of these profound psychological effects in healthy, undrugged persons, or is this now considered quackery? "Acceptable", in this case, means at least peer reviewed, properly controlled for confounding factors, and fully documented. I would also prefer it to be recent, or at least post-1970, because a brief review suggests that a lot of this research in the 1950s and 1960s was very sloppy (and frankly rather unscientific and Frankensteinian); primary copies are also very laborious to track down and review. If we do have to resort to early sources (because no-one seems to be doing this anymore), they must be documented well enough to verify that their methods were sound.
    • Closely related is the question of time which originally puzzled me. There does not seem to be much clear information available about the duration over which time in an isolation tank progresses from "relaxing" to "mind bending". If the effect really exists, it possibly lies somewhere between 2 and 7 days. People have often experienced isolation tanks for the order of 1 full day without ill effects, while seven days seems to be about the longest it is practicable to keep a person in one (what with feeding, elimination of bodily wastes and/or changing catheters or cannulas, plus dermatitis from prolonged immersion in brine.)
  4. Due to point 3 above, there are allegations of the use of sensory deprivation in interrogation. These seem to subdivide into three subcategories:
    1. Extended periods in isolation tanks (or similar makeshift facilities) to cause severe psychological effects, depersonalisation etc. I am now coming to the view that this is probably a myth generated by spy thriller novels (although what with the Soviet abuse of psychiatry, who knows, it may have been tried at some point.)
    2. Moderate or partial sensory deprivation, which is unlikely to have any profound psychological effects since it is similar to many common experiences of human life, but which is intended to be disorienting. Disorientation, whether through sensory restriction or any of dozens of other possible methods, seems to be one of the interrogator's principle tools since it makes it more difficult for the prisoner to lie convincingly (it probably also makes escape less likely).
    3. The so-called "five techniques", which is actually the main focus of our article at present. These five techniques included two (hooding and noise) which involve moderate sensory restriction for disorientation, but cannot really be called "sensory deprivation" in its usual meaning. The other three techniques not only have nothing to do with sensory deprivation, but their description makes it clear that the "sensory deprivation" components must have had frequent interruptions of relatively stimulating input, once again putting the lie to the claim that they were sensory deprivation techniques. It frankly seems as if attaching the phrase "sensory deprivation" to these techniques is a euphemism which is intended to divert attention from the fact that one of the "techniques" was actually intended to cause pain (albeit much milder pain than real torture).

-- 144.138.137.211 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The trial of the UK government in the ECHR makes "the use of sensory deprivation in interrogation" a proven fact not "allegations". You have your POV about what is "sensory deprivation" and the ECHR judges theirs when they considered the five techniques (See paragraph 96). Personally I think that the POV of the judges in the ECHR trumps yours and should remain in the article.
What "allegations"? I nowhere suggested use of the "five techniques" did not occur. What I do claim is that "the five techniques" are not sensory deprivation (in fact, quite obviously aren't even similar). There have been other allegations (or rather, rumours) of use of real sensory deprivation, but this has no bearing on the ECHR report and I have been able to find no evidence of it at all. -- 144.138.137.228 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you not write above "Due to point 3 above, there are allegations of the use of sensory deprivation in interrogation."? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did. I listed three types of allegations, and found one to be probably false, one to be a severe distortion, and one to be true but unrelated to the article topic. Let me make this clear because you seem to be confusing these distinct points (which I intially separated into a numered list to make the distinction clear):
  1. The UK government used certain interrogation techniques, commonly referred to as the "five techniques", which the ECHR found to constitute "inhuman and degrading treatment". We have no disagreement about this.
  2. Some persons have referred to those techniques as "sensory deprivation". No competent authority has made this claim--most notably, the ECHR does not make this claim--and on examining detailed descriptions of the techniques, it is clearly wrong. Given that at the time (early 1970s) there was no pejorative association with the phrase "sensory deprivation", I speculate that it was in fact intended as a euphemism. This is not to say that the "five techniques" are not an important topic worthy to be discussed in detail elsewhere, just that they have little relevance to this article, beyond the fact that the euphemism was once used.
  3. Totally separate from the "five techniques" used by the UK government, there have been allegations of the use of real, actual, non-euphemistic sensory deprivation in interrogation. Until recently, like most people I took it for granted that this was true. However having just scoured all the references presented and many others beside, I am now extremely skeptical. Not only was I unable to find any supportive evidence whatsoever, but the available studies of the effects (all of which are very old and poorly designed, however) leave me very skeptical of the likelihood of it actually working. -- 144.138.137.156 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the ECHR transcipts. (As I mentioned above, I spent many hours going through all of the references in our articles, and many others beside.) The ECHR judges do not claim these techniques constitute sensory deprivation; what they say is These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques, (emphasis added). In other words, they give no specific opinion on whether or not the techniques actually constitute sensory deprivation, but use a form of words which implies that they find the phrase misleading. As they should; it is misleading. In fact, it is obviously wrong.
Apparently my last point was unclear. I am not suggesting complete removal of reference to "the five techniques" from the article. I am suggesting that it should be noted that the phrase "sensory deprivation" is sometimes used to refer to those techniques, but it is misleading and does not even approximate the ordinary meaning. (However we probably could substantially trim that material, given that there is already an article on the five techniques and this article has very little about real sensory deprivation.) --144.138.137.228 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You think it is misleading. The court did not, or they would have said so.
A British Government (the guilty party) source uses the same interpretation as Wikipedia: "This history included the use of the so called ‘five techniques’ interrogation used against terrorist suspects in the early 1970s. These included deprivation of food and drink, sensory deprivation and long periods of standing in a painful position. The European Court of Human Rights found that this did not amount to ‘torture’ but did constitute ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’" Neil Walker and Mark Telford (March 2000) Designing Criminal Justice: The Northern Ireland System in Comparative Perspective: page 36 (PDF)
--Philip Baird Shearer 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, this is wrong. Firstly, the court had no interest in addressing the accuracy of the terminology, so why would they have commented in detail on a term? Nevertheless, they did quite strongly imply that they found it misleading, by putting it in "scare quotes" and preceeding with the phrase "sometimes termed". They NEVER use the phrase themselves, but only pejoratively refer to its use by unnamed others. Secondly, we have the actual judges' decision to read (linked a few paragraphs above), and Walker and Telford's paraphrase is inaccurate. They are briefly paraphrasing a long and complex legal decision, and in condensing the description of the "five techniques" to just sixteen words, they have elided the phrase "sometimes termed". This is not too surprising, as they are lawyers not psychologists and probably couldn't care less about the difference even in the unlikely event they are aware of it. We should expect to do better in an encyclopaedia article, though. -- 144.138.137.156 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


BTW The techniques were originally developed by NATO to sail close to the wind but inside the UN Torture Treaty, and remain effective at extracting information from the interrogation of captured enemy personnel. It is not that the US saw the British techniques and copied them, but use them because they developed them jointly in the 1960s and believe them to be effective and within the letter of the UN Torture Treaty. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't see the relevance. It is still a euphemistic, misleading name which has little to do with actual sensory deprivation. -- 144.138.137.228 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason the NATO torture is not mentioned is because it is tangental, but but as the sources in the article and above, state the use of sensory deprevation are a well known military interrogation methods. ---22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the sources in the article and elsewhere above do not "state the use of sensory deprevation are a well known military interrogation methods". As I discussed in great detail in the previous section, I examined all our listed sources minutely (hundreds of pages, taking me an entire day off and quite a few hours otherwise), and they provide no evidence whatsoever that sensory deprivation is used in military interrogations. In fact quite a lot of these supposed references do not discuss sensory deprivation at all! I approached this quite innocently (my investigation was actually intended to find out how long it takes to work, since it is well known that short periods of a few hours or so of sensory deprivation are pleasant and relaxing), and I was surprised at the result. And I certainly stand to be corrected; I am no expert on the subject, perhaps someone who is an expert can come up with some genuine references. But none of ours at present do so, and I could find no others either. There are a few sources that say that they would consider it to constitute "mental torture". That is not at all the same thing as saying that anyone actually does it, has ever actually done it, nor even that it might work if they did. We might as well say that forcing people to read the Necronomicon is a form of "mental torture". No doubt it would be, if it ever happened, but since the Necronomicon is fictional the point is moot. -- 144.138.137.156 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

144 i think you are missing two points, SD with concent is nice so is sex, sex without concent is rape (yes thats an extreme example). And second though you are right that full SD is not being used (tanks of body temp water) that some limitation (or deprivation) of senses is being used durring transit and possibly at gitmo and durring the extrordinary rendition flights. You see this as not being real SD were as i think not full SD. Hypnosadist 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 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.