Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Revison by Zora

We continue to get complaints that this topic should be treated as a recognized medical condition and that the controversy should just be minimized or dropped. Sorry, it's just NOT OK to censor controversy.

However, the article might well have been too long-winded and confusing. I just made a pass over it and dropped huge swathes of verbiage, without, I think, removing any information. Since I originally wrote most of that verbiage, you can take this as severe self-criticism. Zora 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's half rewritten

i'm too tired to write any more.. it started off as an effort to clean up the article and to make it's assertions more sound -- well, i rewrote most of the first half with references and better reasoning (sorry to whoever wrote it before: sterling effort, but i found it confusing)... naturally i'll be back.. my main focus was/is to place the various "arguments" and POVs into their relevant contexts, so readers don't have to feel they're suffering MPD when trying to read the original's odd grammatical style! jeremy 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ekpyrotic architect's revision

There's some good material in his work, but the revision is vitiated by an unexamined assumption that DID is real, it's a disorder, and critics and dissenters are marginal. I've added a POV tag until we can get this sorted out. I'm tempted to just do a revert, but I don't think that would help the situation. We'll have to thrash this out bit by bit. Zora 20:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I've offended you

Firstly my apologies that you were offended by the article. I had noted in this discussion page for DID that there were many requests to "clean it up" so that it was presented equally from psychological and social perspectives and so that is what i thought i was doing. I realise that the subject of DID is a difficult one for many people, although i disagree with what you have said that i intended to do, as i have merely written into the introduction a generalised psychiatric perspective, and why that field has that perspective, then leaving (aside from grammatical concerns and spelling errors) the remainder of the controversy and personal views mostly untouched. You said that I "assumed that DID is real" when in my writing I made the point that psychiatry has often puzzled over why living in the US one is more likely to receive a diagnosis of DID than in Europe - maybe i wasn't explicit enough but it suggests that there are many "diagnosers" who have unjustifiably leapt onto the Sybil bandwagon. Either that, or Europeans have been underreporting DID. Your assertion that i reduced that stuff to footnotes is not accurate as the only footnotes I added were references to journals or books to qualify the statements made by me (or whomever wrote the prior stuff from which i expanded), so that it could be placed within a wider societal context.

As this site encourages people to respectfully edit, I have no qualms that you might feel like reverting it back to your prior way of writing, although I do suggest that rather than just assuming pschological/psychiatric perspectives, that you qualify them with references, as you have done with the personal viewpoint section. In my POV (as you would call it), something such as DID needs an introduction like the one i wrote so that the controversy and personal perspectives can better be understood by an average person who is reading this for the first time, or perhaps even for someone who has received a diagnosis of DID and is wondering what it all means.

I wont be bringing my personal opinions into this, as I'm still looking for the clues that I need to make a fully informed decision, if I ever do. One thing that i will confess, however, is that I don't believe anything is objectively real (probably due to studying quantum theory). For example, someone can say they are happy and I either have to believe them or not, and there is no way i can truly verify what they say unless I take their word for it. Ditto with DID and other so-called "psychiatric illnesses". They are "real" in a sense that compared to society as it is, they present problems (even if people are faking it). If society was based on, and built upon the expectation that people were "multiple" then i suspect that psychiatry would be focussed on "disorders" that involved difficulties in dealing with "singletons". Psychiatry therefore, does not have all of the answers.

So my POV is that to revert the article is to narrow the scope of an field that must be fleshed out. There will always be different ways of writing an article, but that doesn't mean it's a different POV. But feel free to edit to your heart's content.

Recovered memory therapy

I have just now created a page on Recovered memory therapy. It has a lot to do with this disorder, and I hope you guys can make productive contributions to my article. Grandmasterka 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I was putting citation tags in this article, and needed so many my fingers got tired. A pittance of things are cited, but there's massive work to be done in this area. This article needs to be rewritten to be about DID and the medical definition, with a mention of opinions pro and con, not an essay on each labrynthine aspect.

This article focuses way too much on controversy that should go to repressed memory controversy. The "you-we" tone is used very often. It's a mess. --DanielCD 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm cutting material that I feel should go to "Healthy mult" or other repressed memory articles. I'm not trying to debunk anything, so feel free to voice concerns. --DanielCD 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I am reverting to the way I found it, but keeping the tags. I'm not comfortable with making such major changes without discussion. However, the last edited version in the history edited by me is approximating what this should look like. A definition of the disorder, with the controversy (pro and con) mentioned, as well as mentioning the other aspects. I don't think the bulk of this material belongs here. --DanielCD 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the keys to cleaning up this article is to realise that "dissociative identity disorder" is not so much a generic, abstract, state of mind like love, or hate, or chagrin, but rather a term coined by the DSM and wider psychiatric community to define a certain set of observable symptoms within the entire spectrum of abnormal human behaviour and that is surely all the article should be about?

If you like, the article should be about the nature of the hypothesis that is called "dissociative identity disorder" not whether it is right or wrong and in what degree? Roll on Friday... --Zeraeph 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! About the hypothesis and the nature of the condition in question. The controversy is valid, but overfocused here to the point that it confuses the reader as to what the article is about.

Removed "note" section. That's speculation and doesn't add anything to the article. Also pushes it a bit over the POV line. The NPOV dispute is there as I saw some other brief material and language that needs to be fixed. Pedophiles and sex abuse per se aren't the topic here, and are overfocused. Perhaps material can go elsewhere. --DanielCD 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• holding nose, eyes squeezed tight shut* I have attempted a little rationalisation of the intro, plenty more work to do on it though, apparently DID has been in the DSM since 1994 so there was a big error right there in the intro. I hope, as I edit, this, those affected by DID in their lives realise that I am not saying the hypothesis of DID is RIGHT. I am not sure it is, and they probably know far more about that than I do. I am just trying to divert the article to define what that hypothesis actually IS. A lot of the information here belongs in other articles, for instance alter is pretty much a stub, and it shouldn't be --Zeraeph 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the REGULAR. I wrote much of the article. Zeraeph, DanielCD's intro para is much better, as it starts out by explaining what DID is -- a psychiatric diagnosis -- rather than starting with historical info re name change. That info logically comes later.

I will resist mightily any attempt to turn the article into a ho-hum treatment of DID as established fact, denied only by a few weirdos. I rewrote the article to counter a takeover by the DID-believers and Peter Barach of the ISSD, all of whom have a stake in asserting that DID is "real". (You can manipulate people with "real", but you can't push them around with "delusion".) Of course I have a personal agenda too, as will become apparent if you read the talk page. However, I have tried to do my best to give all POVs equal billing.

Talk to me, don't sneer at me. Zora 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Before DID, there was MPD (multiple personality disorder). Sure, the name was changed in 1994, but the syndrome described was essentially the same. The one crucial distinction was that the name MPD, and the description, assume several distinct "personalities" controlling one body. The claims of the sufferers, that they are distinct "people", is accepted. The DID diagnosis suggests that the belief that one is "multiple" is a delusion. IMHO, the change was politically motivated, in that psychology/psychiatry were getting extremely bad press from people like Bennet Braun.

I disagree strongly with the notion that all controversy should go into "multiple personalities" and that DID should be left unsullied by questioning. Now it's possible that a different organization of the material might make sense. We could have a historical treatment of the MPD/recovered memory mania (still not over), and refer to that in the DID article. We could also include some of the text of the DID and MPD diagnoses, pointing out where these diagnoses differ. We might also link to the article Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is actually quite good at presenting the controversies surrounding the DSM.

Just as a matter of encyclopedic style, it is better to start with what the entity IS, before going into its history. Zora 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, firstly that wasn't DanielCD's intro I changed, it's WAY older than that and does not encompass the facts. I think the intro needs a total re-write to take the facts into account. That the older title is more descriptive is really as much an useful device for a quick fix than anything. NEEDS MORE work, but NOT reversion to inaccuracy.

Secondly I am NOT sneering at you...however, that the APA has an hypothesis called "dissociative identity disorder" IS established fact...but does that hypothesis relate to reality?

I, frankly, have no idea, I do not know enough...yet...and maybe never will? Some of that controversy belongs in the article, but it should not dominate the article.

I hope you are going to stick around to balance the "believers" as we fight for an objective article that describes a psychiatric hypothesis (<NB THAT WORD!!) --Zeraeph 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm coming at this from the POV of someone who believes he/she has DID (or MPD). The article as it stood was a hard-fought compromise between someone who is fairly skeptical (me) and various editors of the believer or healthy multiple variety. Healthy multiples are particularily strong online.

Zeraeph, the old intro para is really much better, in that it says right off that DID is a diagnosis. Your version starts with a bit of history that doesn't make any sense if you don't already know about DID and the DSM. Zora 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem, the old intro para is not only factually inaccurate (kinda in the "insurmountable" range?) but subjective --Zeraeph 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Did a bit of compromising. Understand, as far as I am concerned DID exists as an hypothesis that is part of the DSM but it ONLY exists with any certainty in that context, if that makes sense...

Thus "Dissociative identity disorder is characterized by the use of dissociation as a primary defense mechanism." that's what the hypothesis IS...finite...doesn't mean anybody has ever suffered from it or ever will, just mean that is the nature of the hypothesis. Am I making sense yet? --Zeraeph 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am not done with DID/schizophrenia, my para is just a placeholder. That fantasy connection needs underlining, highlighting and copying into neon letters 20 feet high on the Hollywood Hills. I don't think anyone with any real knowledge disputes that? --Zeraeph 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi regular. Didn't mean anything by that; that's just the way it is when you come to a new article (new for me anyway). Gimme a chance to read all this. My primary beef was with that "note" that belongs somewhere else (where, I have no idea), but that's getting way too deep into side issues. Other than that, it's improving the citations that I want to start looking at. I don't want to step on toes, that's why I reverted the original cuts I made. --DanielCD 01:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"... that DID should be left unsullied by questioning." I don't mean this; I just mean that it is overdone. The paragraphs are bloated and can be made much more effective by reducing them to concice sentences. I'm here to work with, not against, so LMK what you think. Do you think it's fine the way it is? LMK. ...or, let us know.

There will be some back and forth and disagreements, but we are all civil here and can handle it. I don't get upset over being reverted, and I don't really have a position on the issue, I just want to make a quality article. --DanielCD 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. You guys really don't seem to have an agenda, which is refreshing. I've spent a year defending this article against zealots -- one of whom might have been E. Sue Blume, whose writing style I recognize from Usenet. People complain that the article is confusing, which is a valid complaint, but they seem to want to resolve things by enshrining one of the POVs as "the truth". It IS confusing that there are so many POVs. Many issues will just have two. If you want to work with me to keep all the info, but perhaps organize it differently (even into separate articles), that would be fine. Zora 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as to citations -- I've done VERY wide reading on the subject, but most of it was done before I started working on this article. I didn't keep bibliographic records. So I ended up using primarily the three or four books I purchased, rather than citing the library materials. Better documentation would be quite useful. Now that I have a Questia account, and have figured out the canny trick of using ABEbooks to get bibliographic info, I think that we could produce a much better bibliography. Zora 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No Agenda

Good heavens no! Agenda are nasty, dirty, things with no place on wikipedia *shudders*. (Put new subheader because comment was getting LONG and awkward to edit). Definately happy to work with you to knock article into impartial validated shape full of citations, and maybe branch off into a couple of other articles too.

I feel that the best way to do this is to first describe the DSM definition (they won't give permission to use criteria on Wikipedia which is why only a link) and usage (That DID is only one of four dissociative disorders in DSM IV needs mention?) and then to point out that this is a controversial diagnosis and outline the controversy with a short section for each viewpoint. Each POV needs to be validated within the text with sources cited, then all personal opinion is excluded (as it should be).--Zeraeph 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about moving the history of the diagnosis to another article? Zora 10:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an article to cover both the history and controversy? I think that would be interesting reading.

We need a solid definition for "Healthy multiplicity". I think this is the first time I've ever even encountered this term, and if that's true for me, it's likely true for others. I'm going to try and work on that a bit. I'll start by reading that article (which I'm almost afraid to do...). ;-). --DanielCD 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is "healthy multiplicity" a sufficiently established term to merit it's own article? Because, in a sense, "healthy" and "disorder" are contradictions in terms and don't really belong together?

The definition of "healthy multiplicity" that comes right off the top no my head is the phenomenon whereby the same person can be father, son, brother and spouse at the same time? Is that any part of it?

I definately think the history and controversy belong in the same article...as far as I recall the name was changed to DID as a reaction to the controversy? What I am inclined to wonder is whether DID and "multiple personality" belong in the same article...they really are supposed to be quite different concepts? --Zeraeph 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's actually several people (sic) or "souls" living in the same mind. I don't think it's worth it's own article, but that's my opinion. I've never encountered it before now. This might be a doable project on its own, but if ppl come in and start insisting on positions, it could get hairy. We might try making a case to AfD (articles for deletion vote) the HM article and see if it survives that. But we need to look more to see just how established a term it is before we do that. It is a contradiction; that's what's making this article so odd to edit. --DanielCD 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Healthy Multiplicity

The "healthy multiple" position is notable. You can judge that just from the number of websites linked and the "healthy multiple" editors who have been active here. I've seen it all over the place online. Online is where the "healthy multiples" find each other. They don't have "conventions", like science fiction fen, so far as I know, but there is a web of personal contacts, started online and kept up in real life, that keeps something like a community alive. Per me, anthropologist, observer of Usenet. Zora 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(Popping in another header to avoid unwieldiness) Just discovered that "Healthy Multiplicity" has it's own article already (sorry, my connection was really bad until today, I could hardly open pages much of the time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_multiplicity . To my mind that should be filed under "See Also" (where I've put it), where it seems, to my objective eye, at least as relevant as recovered memory? Then any information on "Healthy Multiplicity" should be added to that article, if it isn't there already?

There is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory. I am wondering if that belongs under "See Also" too? (Where I haven't put it yet, because I am not sure). My feeling is that only the briefest of references to the FMS/Child Abuse issues should be made and the relevant links under "see also".

This article is about DID, the DSM IV TR disorder, NOT Childhood Abuse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse and it has this SUPERB "Articles related to" type box, top right, that might work here for relevant links, and solve a LOT of problems?), or the childhood abuse debate. I don't think any of those issues belong here at any length, though they are related, and maybe an "Article Related to" box, top right, might solve that? Thoughts? --Zeraeph 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm hoping to avoid overlapping with the pro/con "child abuse" factions :0 . So much fun. HM is a concept, and I don't think now I'd AfD it. It might be useful to explore some of the peer/review and request for comment options so we can get some fresh input on how to handle it. I'll look into that. --DanielCD 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Healthy Mult

I cut the following from this section and made just a short, but what I feel is adequate, treatment of it in an article like this. Comments welcome. Here is the material I removed, and I'll see if any can fit into the main article.

Note: I'm in no way judging the validity of this material; I'm just saying it can be placed better elsewhere.

Some contend that the unity of the self is an illusion and that everyone is fundamentally multiple (an opinion similar to the observations of William James and other modernist writers). Others take the position that some people are inherently singletons, some inherently multiple, and that people should be allowed to express themselves as they are.

While such evidence suggests a common psychological mechanism for multiplicity, it also highlights the influence of the surrounding culture on the perception and subjective experience of multiplicity. For example, people in other cultures who are multiple do not express their other selves as "parts of themselves", but as independent souls or spirits. There is no evident link between multiplicity, dissociation or recovered memories, and -- surprisingly -- between multiplicity and sexual abuse.

There is a fair bit of cross-cultural evidence to suggest that a small but persistent fraction of humans everywhere experience themselves as multiple. Many religions recognize shamans, people who claim to communicate with and be possessed by gods or spirits. In yet other religions, like voodoo and the orisha religions of Africa, all devotees aim to be possessed by the gods. Here, multiplicity is not a dysfunction, but a spiritual goal.

--DanielCD 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this just now, it's way beyond the scope here:

"By encouraging the public not to believe the victims, they say, the FMSF in effect supports pedophiles."

The only place I can conceive of this going is an article on the FMS Foundation. If someone wants to use this info and that of the "Note" I removed, they should take the time to write such an article.

I've also taken out the tags, except for the cleanup one, for the time being. --DanielCD 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We probably need an article on the FMS Foundation so this material will have a home. Any volunteers to write it? --DanielCD 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tearing out my hair. I'm jobless, broke, and I spend HOURS every day working on articles re Islam, clothing, Polynesia, Indian films, AND this. I would be the right person to write that article but I can't commit to it! Zora 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. So many articles...so little..yadda yadda. BYW, I slipped the above material into the HM article. Will try to integrate and smooth it over as I have time. --DanielCD 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job so far!

I was so worried, Zeraeph, that you were going to do a hatchet job on the article, but you've actually been a good editor. As long as the material that's been dropped finds a home somewhere else, we're OK.

I do feel that the opening section is perhaps slanted towards a belief that there IS such a disorder. DID is described as if it were something that EXISTS. Also, I'm not sure that it's fair to say only that "some" shrinks reject the diagnosis -- that makes them sound like a nutball fringe. I don't know of any studies with statistics, but my impression is that the critics are more high-profile than the supporters. A bit of caution in the wording would help.

Yes, this is my POV -- I'm one of the sceptics, sorta kinda. (It would take a while to explain my position, which I have tried to keep out of the article.) I don't insist that the wording imply that the disorder IS factitious, just that it leave the question open. Zora 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hatchet job? Moi? ;o) Nah...But if you get where I'm coming from (I know I'm repeating myself) DID DOES exist, definately, as an hypothesis put forward in the DSM, and I think that's all this article should really be about, the DSM hypothesis (and perhaps it needs to be made very plain that is all it is about?). The only thing in question is whether anybody ever has, or ever will suffer from it, which may need referring to in SOME way?

Where I stand personally is that I'm not sure how real any of the DSM categories are, or can be, until the day we can actually see inside each other's heads. With DID I just don't know...and that isn't an "I don't know" because I haven't thought about it, it's an "I don't know" because that's the best I can do with the evidence that has been available to me.

Apart from that, can we archive some of the older parts of this discussion before it becomes a "broadband only" ghetto? --Zeraeph 14:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive away. Zora 14:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All done! Strictly chronologially to be fair, now, at least I, find it easier to read all three pages! --Zeraeph 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We probably don't need so many "Voices of alleged multiples". I used the word "alleged" for lack of a better term and have no problem if someone wants to remove it. But we should keep it to 3-ish and only the most relevant ones.

Also: HM is already liked in the article body. Do you think we need one in the 'See also' as well?

Also #2: the believer/con sections are unequal. I am having a hard time trying to trim down the con section. But this area needs work. Not that there's not enough already. --DanielCD 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well my grounds for popping it in "see also" is that I didn't notice the link in article myself and had to search for it. Lots of times the same links that appear in articles appear in "see also"...to me it's a kind of shorthand for "other related stuff you might be interested in". But ideally I would LOVE (am I repeating myself again?) to drop it all in favor of one of those "articles related to" boxes that appears on the top of child abuse. See what you think?

In my megalomanic "God mode" I see all these multiplicious links categorised in an "articles related to" box and the article itself defining the DSM disorder of DID properly and then briefly explaining how that relates to the various articles in the box? Seems as good a way as any to tie this labyrinth together, while staying firmly on the topic?

I will, of course, probably be deposed on that :o( --Zeraeph 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me look at it. Seems like The Anome has made some nice edits that might clear up the 'see also' issue. --DanielCD 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. The template idea could get messy. But might be doable. It would have a core of strongly related material, like personality disorders or the like. It can't be weak, as weak ones are often frowned on. --DanielCD 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When I checked "Child Abuse" that box just hit me in the center of the forehead as a great way to show the complexity of the issue "at a glance" (as it seemed to on "Child Abuse").

One aspect that is getting overlooked is that DID as it stands today is one of four different "dissociative disorders". See http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dissocdis.htm (now THERE's a nice little can of worms!)

Though DID replaced MPD I am not sure it is entirely synonymous with it and I'm not sure MPD should redirect to it...which would mean creating a seperate MPD article (maybe most of the information covered here belongs under MPD if you look as what DID is in terms of the DSM?)...and perhaps renaming this article "Dissociative Disorders" (which is currently redirecting to "Dissociation" which is not ideal) and dealing with all four dissociative disorders here? (Unless somebody wants to create "dissociative disorders" article and a seperate article for each disorder? Maybe better? Doesn't have to be finished overnight?)

Trust me, on even cursory examination ALL dissociative disorders have a controversial aspect. --Zeraeph 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, lemme digest some of this. Yea, cleanup here is likely to expand outward. It would be good to rethink the current divisions, though I haven't looked far beyond this article. I'm working on three different things right now and might be getting in over my head. --DanielCD 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

From Zenith

Zenith, you can just click "edit" and add your comments --Zeraeph 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello - apologies in advance -- I cannot figure out how to add my own views, so I will just put them here.

1: If there is information discrediting the existence of DID as a disorder... how about the controversy surrounding the groups that discredit reovered memories? There is much of it - mainly in the nature of group 'big-wigs' being convicted paedophiles etc themselves.

2: I don't think people with DID are much of a threat. I am unsure of the past, but these days (where I live at least) a case brought to court by somebody with DID is likely to be thrown out. DID is NOT going to work in a persons favour to gain a conviction against an abuser. It is going to make it far more difficult for them.

3: I was diagnosed with DID about 6 years ago now. I have never been hypnotised. I have never been 'encouraged' by a therapist -- in fact I have come across more 'sceptical' therapists than therapists that even believed me. It is a quandry for me to not be able to go to a therapist who 'believes' me. I mean -- in one sense it feels devaluing going to see somebody each week who is in effect wondering if I'm a liar or hysterical and insane. On the other hand... if the therapist is helpful (DID is not actually my most difficult problem.. I have quite a few more which are much tougher to deal with) then I have a desire to stay because I want to learn how to cope better with life.

4: Like I said, I have never been hypnotised etc. However, I only 'remembered' the details of my abuse at about age 17 when I took myself off all my medications. Yet... a couple of years after I remembered, my younger sister who I had never spoken to about this, came to me one day and confirmed everything I had remembered. She told me she remembered being abused. She said the same person did it - at the same house - the same room in the house - the same days of the week. Even with this information... going to court would likely be an exercise in futility. I have given up on the desire for justice through the court system. Instead I have come to realise that this person who abused us really is the one who is suffering.... because he is incapable of feeling love.

5: I have read some interesting information that explains how DID is not really that 'extraordinary'. It is basically the theory that all people have different aspects to their personality... and DID is just as case of the different facets of a 'normal' personality seperating more than normal. That makes a lot of sense to me. It is *not* actually as fantastical as people think... I believe that the media has helped shape public perception of DID into something akin to 'magic' when the reality of DID is often not as 'dramatic' as it's been made out to be. Like I said - DID is not actually a big issue in my life. It is the other things such as anxiety and self-hatred and self abuse which are the big difficulties.

I appreciate the links to Healthy Multiplicity.

I understand that this article has to be 'impartial' -- but until DID is accepted as a real disorder, people such as myself, with very real stories and experiences are of course going to be hurt by the language ('alleged multiples') and controversy surrounding our diagnosis. People who have lived through hell deserve the right to BE, without constant criticism. As I said previously - DID is *highly unlikely* to help a person in a case against their abuser(s) these days. It is far more of a hindrance than anything. We and our families live with DID, regardless of controversy. That's a fact.

Thanks :)

Zenith from New Zealand

Hi Zenith I acknowledge and accept everything you are saying, from my heart and find your statements reasonable, balanced, informative and concise.

What I do not understand is where most of it belongs in an encyclopaedia article that should simply define Dissociative identity disorder as listed in DSM IV and openly acknowledge the controversy around it.

Ok, I know how smart-mouthed that sounds, but it isn't meant that way. Go look at the actual DSM IV TR criteria http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/did.htm . That is what, and ALL the article should be about, and I am noit even sure it is a true synonym for MPD. In addition I feel sure the article should just describe the hypothesis (as an hypothesis), and not judge it.

I am not sure that the kind of text that belongs here should have any openings for words like "alleged" to be part of it?? If you don't see what I mean, try fitting the word "alleged" into the DSM criteria.

Hope you will figure out how to stay and be part of the discussion and article, though there is disagreement, we are fortunate to currently have respectful and civilised people contributing and the final result could well be a cluster of fine articles that make all the important points around this issue.--Zeraeph 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I don't believe DID is a "real" disorder, having had to deal with someone who ran into the idea online and soon convinced himself that he had it. The claim to DID isn't a claim to win a court case -- it's a claim to special treatment from those around you. I have no doubt that Zenith is suffering and that she has problems; I do doubt her self-diagnosis that it's DID. Similarly, I'd doubt the self-diagnosis of someone who believed he had koro or was possessed by demons. Symptoms may be real and painful, but the assemblage of those symptoms into a diagnosis is culturally defined.

So, there are the two poles of the problem. We're going to have to steer between Scylla and Charybdis. Zora 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the link to koro -- it's not a Japanese incense burner -- it's a "disease" specific to East Asia in which men become obsessed with the fear that their penis is shrinking into their body. This is usually believed to be due to witches. Zora 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OH BLIMEY!! What idiot put that there. *chuckles* (as you can tell I still haven't found my fine toothcomb yet) I cannot even imagine an argument for connecting it with DID (unless we are going with the "each man also has a little man" school of thought? ;o) )...though perhaps it could qualify as a fifth form of dissociative disorder? Dissociative disorders in general being described thus: "Patients with these mental disorders suffer disruption of memory, consciousness, identity, and general perception of themselves and their surroundings."? At least now I know it's called "Koro" for next time I curse a bureaucrat with it --Zeraeph 10:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I hope I'm doing it right this time? I feel like such an idiot when it comes to this stuff! I can't figure it out.

Anyway...

Zora - there are some flaws in your arguement.

1: Just because one person you have known appears to have 'created' the disorder for attention or whatever your perception was - that does not mean the disorder or diagnosis does not exist. I have met someone who 'pretended' to have a paralysed limb. Does that mean the real problem of paralysed limbs does not exist? No. It means that one person was 'faking'.

2: I'm pretty sure I said in my piece that I was diagnosed with DID about 6 years ago. The diagnosis has been confirmed again and again over the years - by both therapists and doctors. I did not self-diagnose.

3: My husband gives me a lot of love and attention -- that is the kind of relationship I want to be in - a loving one. My husband has known since he met me that I had DID. It was fairly obvious at the time because I was extremely unwell and my alters were in a big muddle. Aside from that, I can honestly say I do not get *any* 'special attention' because I have DID. I have had therapists and psychiatrists, but I wouldn't call that 'special attention'. Doctors are... well, doctors - and I've found a lot of therapists to be carrying their own serious baggage and that in itself has been very difficult. Doctors are not terribly interested in the DID -- they are about controlling symptoms (mine being anxiety and unstable mood and depression etc) usually with drugs. Therapists - well, I explained how DID is not always 'accepted' by therapists - also I don't really talk about it because it isn't one of the bigger difficulties. On top of that -- if I have had someone I thought was a close friend, and I have divulged my 'secret'(from my experience DID is not something you want to go telling everyone you have) I have often been ridiculed and rejected.

So - perhaps for some people their DID is a way of gaining attention, but from my own experience DID is something to be hidden - it's important to keep oneself safe from mistreatment and ridicule.

My reason for writing here, is I saw a notice that this topic was controversial, and also I understand people have been upset about what is written. I imagine some of those people have been diagnosed with DID themselves, and -- I believe people with DID should not have to feel ashamed nor under constant attack. I am not saying that is anybody's intention, but I get a feeling of how coming here and reading what it says about DID could be very upsetting for those with the diagnosis. Especially with the compounded 'insult' of some sceptics perhaps discrediting an actual diagnosis for their own ends. I am certain that there are sceptics out there who are sceptics for the very purpose of 'discrediting' sexual abuse survivors. That is certainly salt rubbed into the wound.

I hope that if somebody diagnosed with DID, or if a loved one of somebody diagnosed with DID comes here and reads, they will perhaps stumble across what I have written, and feel not so alone - as though their 'side of the story' has been expressed somewhat.

Sincerely,

Zenith

Hi - me again.

I see somebody has changed the heading 'Alleged Multiples' to 'Voices of Multiples', and I just wanted to say a big Thank You. I feel it is more respectful and ... it's just really appreciated.

Sincerely,

Zenith

Zenith, it wasn't just this one person I knew personally. I've been reading about MPD/DID and watching the Usenet DID support group for years. Nor is it just me. There are many people -- and many psychologists -- who feel that the diagnosis is faddish. This is not to say that you don't have symptoms! If you're anxious, depressed, and feel that there are parts of you that aren't you, well, that's all real ... and painful. It's just a question of how to add them up. You could add them up in a different way. Of course, it's OK by me if you want to believe a certain narrative about yourself. However, you can't expect other people to accept your narrative without question. Zora 07:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________ Hello again,

I found this interesting link:

http://members.aol.com/smartnews/did_proof.html

I think it is a fairly good 'rebuttal' to the false memory syndrome foundations point of view.

Zora - I hope you never have to be in the situation where your personal experiences are constantly under scrutiny. I have been under scrutiny from friends, family, doctors, therapists etc for years. I definitely fit the diagnostic criteria for D.I.D. Does that not mean I have D.I.D, if I fit the diagnostic criteria (which is there in the manual for a reason) and my symptoms do not 'fit' with any other diagnosis? I have been tested over and over, and every doctor I have actually met has accepted the diagnosis of D.I.D - some therapists have been sceptical.

I realise that we may not know the actual cause(s) of D.I.D for some time - if ever. I was molested from a young age. However, so was my sister - and she does not have D.I.D. The abuse she suffered was not as prolonged nor as severe as what happened to me. Could that be the difference? I suspect I was also born a highly sensitive individual. Perhaps that also, plays a part.

I would be extremely wary to say that abuse during childhood alone, is the cause of DID. I knew of somebody online who had DID, and their belief was that the DID was caused through trauma during childhood due to them being extremely sensitive to loud sounds and other stimuli. That seems quite a reasonable concept to me. In this persons case - the trauma was not caused at all intentionally.

I personally do not believe my other parts are seperate people. I do not believe they are spirits or my body is inhabited by 'somebody else'. Intellectually I understand that the others are parts of myself which are more seperate or independant than they 'should' be. They are very different from me, but I suspect that might be because the different parts are in actual fact different 'functions'. My husband says that I alone, am not a 'whole' person. That concept terrifies me at times, yet I understand what he is saying. This 'me' - the one writing - is more often than not anxious and rather reactive (though I am trying to change that). Yet one of the others might be consistently calm and playful, for example. If I were to integrate all my parts somehow... you would see a picture of a more 'complete' person. My husband says when or if we finally integrate, that will be 'Super Zenith'. That makes me smile. I am actually a highly intelligent person. I scored within the 99th percentile on the entrance test for Mensa, and I desperately hope that one day I will be 'together' enough to do what I really want to do in my life. It is hard when I do not have all my abilities directly 'at hand'. It would be great to have everything there, all at once.

In summary, I believe DID does exist as a disorder. The actual causes of DID are uncertain as far as I am concerned - I know I was abused, but can I be certain that is what 'caused' the DID? No, I cannot. Perhaps it triggered something which I already had a genetic tendancy toward. Who knows?

I will stop writing here now, as I have done what I wished to do - provide a voice for people with DID who might come across this page. I am not going to fall into the trap of holding myself up to further scrutiny - I know my own reality, and I feel it is a waste of my time 'justifying' who I am. People will believe what they want to believe. We all have different intentions and motivations.

Just try to remember that people who truly have suffered during their lives and who have been diagnosed with D.I.D will come to this page - so commence with compassion in mind. I see that is already happening however - there is thoughtful discussion here.

Take good care everybody

Zenith from New Zealand

Before this gets into the realms of being personal or hurtful, can I suggest a few things?

First, most obvious, one being that DID and factitious DID could both exist...every disease has it's hypochondriacs, doesn't prove it isn't also real.

Zora, I certainly know what you mean about the usenet (and other) groups. However, they only give you a picture of "persons with DID who feel the need to post about it on usenet", that's not likely to be the whole picture, and to state pragmatically that because of what you have read elsewhere and what you have seen there that "all DID is factitious" is a sweeping generalisation nobody has the right to make. To which the "smart mouth" answer would be "have you MET everybody with DID?".

Truth is that we cannot know what goes on inside somebody else's head, we can ONLY have an opinion, that is all we are entitled to. That is hard fact you cannot walk away from.

I am going to "risk the wrath of the APA" and post the actual DSM IV criteria for DID for the weekend (I'll replace it with a link before monday).

• A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).
• B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.
• C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
• D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.

Now Zora, what part of those actual words do you disagree with? Be careful because this MOST CERTAINLY IS a trick question. Not least because the APA chose their words so it would HAVE to be, and remember this article is ONLY about DID, NOT about any earlier or seperate perception of MPD (which will get it's own article if it kills me because I do not believe the current DID criteria really cover the concept that is MPD - true or false, right or wrong - fully or effectively).

When you are discussing the workings of the human mind the distinction between perception and reality can become impossible to make, to the extent that I could make a case to show that you, and Zenith, are BOTH absolutely right about this.

I don't believe that there is any place for personal opinion in a Wikipedia article. "Alleged" IS personal opinion. In my personal opinion the entire DSM-IV-TR is no more than "allegation", but that is just my one person's opinion, and doesn't belong in any of the relevant articles at all.

What you CAN put here is established, published opinion that you agree with, as long as you can cite the source for people to check it out for themselves, in context, if they so wish.

I also don't believe that there is any place for irrelevancy in a Wikipedia article and I have the uneasy feeling that pretty much every word between "many cultures throughout history have had different models for integrating alternative mentalities into their social fabric" and "see also" is irrelevant to DID (except in terms of being linked from text or as related articles).

Here is a really great article about something (quite different) that is very much a matter of opinion and faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo (and no, "Obeah" does NOT redirect it has it's own, equally well presented "stub" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeah ). Is it not possible to give DID, MPD and associated issues similar treatment? --Zeraeph 11:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cutting a Swathe

I have taken this line out because, not only does it lack citation and relevancy, it is also misleading. Though those who believe that mental illness itself is a cultural specific syndrome, must, perforce, believe multiplicity is healthy if they believe in it at all (and there is no reason to assume that they do). There is no reason to suppose that all who believe healthy multiplicity also believe in mental illness as a cultural specific syndrome.

--- Proponents of this view may generally hold the perhaps controversial belief that mental illness itself generally tends to be a culture-specific syndrome, and that many cultures throughout history have had different models for integrating alternative mentalities into their social fabric, for example, as shamans. ---

But I have done WORSE BAD...I have removed the "Healthy Multiplicity" section entirely. C'mon! It doesn't belong under the definition of a disorder. What I have done is put a nice, juicey relevant link here:

--- A third view is that multiplicity is not always a disorder (see: "healthy multiplicity") and that it can be normal to experience oneself as multiple, so that it is possible to be multiple without having MPD or DID. ---

As well as in "See Also"...

As always, you have the right to lynch me and revert over my poor carcass, but think on't first. --Zeraeph 14:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding that I still have a pulse (odd?) I am getting a little more daring and building a bibliography of relevant professional (rather than popular) sources, in no particular order (except as I find them). I am leaving the old links for now (except weeding out total irrelevancies like False Memory Syndrome Foundation, which only belongs in the False Memory Article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory ). If you know for certain that any of the original links are valid professional resources about DID/MPD (I am a LONG way from the nearest reference library) please feel move (or copy) them to the bibliography section to be referred to as sources.

I hope I won't be the only person using these sources to build premise for their own opinion (or even the opposing opinion, it can be an interesting, learning experience to build premise for an argument you vehemently disagree with).

I hope in the end that all the popular rather than professional sources will remain in a "Links" and/or "Interesting Reading" section and the bibliography will consist entirely of professional references. (Remember, I still have GRAND PLANS for a template box at the top of the page similar to that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/child_abuse bringing all the relevant topics and links together - I also have delusions of unquestioned autocracy :o( ) --Zeraeph 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I just shifted this lot to "Repressed Memory" where it belongs ("Recovered Memory" redirects to it):

===Repressed/Recovered memories===

• [1] What About Recovered Memory?
• [2] Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research and Scholary Resources
• [3] The Recovered Memory Project: 96 cases of corroborated recovered memories of sexual abuse
• Childhood Trauma Remembered: A report on the current scientific knowledge base and its applications Published by International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies --Zeraeph 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Healthy Multiples

I do not think that you should remove the "healthy multiple" section. It is a widespread and notable view of DID. It directly critiques the diagnosis. Zeraeph, you're starting to push this article in the "accepting the DSM uncritically" direction. I'm starting to have a suspicion that you haven't read much, or any, of the critical material, and that you're starting from a "respect the authorities" stance. Careful! Zora 19:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me see how "healthy multiples" (which has it's own article) could possibly be part of the definition of any disorder, real or factitious. It isn't a view of DID at all, it's a view of multiple personality, a seperate concept. Remember the only certain existance Dissociative identity disorder has is as an hypothesis put forward by the APA in the DSM IV TR, I want to see that defined properly, as it is put forward. Beyond that I'd like to see "multiple personality" have it's own article independent of the DSM definition (which is ALL this article should really be about).--Zeraeph 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It's disingenuous to deny a link between MPD and DID. Everyone else involved in the controversies accepts that they are different names for the same supposed "disorder", with, IMHO, a differing emphasis on the reality of the postulated personalities or subpersonalities. Same folks involved in the professional association, same participants in the controversies. It was a political change, like Bombay becoming Mumbai or Negros becoming "blacks".

The healthy multiples are critiquing the DSM's embrace of the concept that any experience of the self as "multiple" is ipso facto a disorder. It's a direct critique of the psychiatric/psychological establishment and the DSM. You can't just "simplify" the matter by ejecting a whole mass of critics from the fray, or refusing to discuss the question of whether or not there is some "real" disorder underlying the symptoms grouped as MPD or DID. Zora 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the more I look, the more I realise that DID (in terms of DSM IV) is NOT exactly the same concept as MPD (no I am not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, just that that is what they have done). It's actually listed as one of four interlinked dissociative disorders.

Secondly I was not actually (at this time, though I have tentative plans for later on) making a distinction between DID and MPD but between DID and the abstract concept "multiple personality" - VERY different thing. Bluntly, if it isn't a disorder, it isn't DID. I could even make a creditable argument to claim that healthy multiplicity isn't anything to do with dissociative identity EITHER. Even the DSM has never actually attempted to claim that all multiplicity is a disorder.

Though it needs expanding, verification and citation, the "controversy" section really does say all that needs to be said on that topic, what is needed is more relevant definition of what DID is actually claimed to be, which is barely mentioned.

As it stood a couple of days ago this article was more about "Creating Hysteria" by Joan Acocella than about DID.--Zeraeph 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you're taking sides

Zeraeph, you're very clearly taking sides on a controversial topic. There are many people who believe that the DSM-IV is mistaken in recognizing DID as a "disease". You're coming down plump on the side of the people who are dismissing all criticism.

So much for coming here to "clean up a mess". Making things clearer is one thing, but doing so by excising POVs is NOT OK by any Wikipedia standard.

That new material should be moved down into one of the opinion sections and be completely rewritten. Zora 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I am just on the side of removing all the irrelevancies and actually posting a informed definition of DID. The irrelevancies that dominate this article ARE "the mess".

For your information the DSM has NEVER recognised or referred to DID as "a disease". --Zeraeph 12:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)