Talk:Dissociation (psychology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenny1620. Peer reviewers: Hphilli2, Megan E Smith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdwyier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion, 2004

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 23 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to keep and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Discussion:

From Cleanup: Dissociation dict def.

• Keep. Despite currently being a sub-stub, this is a valid psychological topic. Could cover: State of dissociation, Types and degrees of dissociation, Dissociative disorders, Dissociation techniques, Uses of dissociation e.g. pain control, conflict resolution. --Zigger 19:04, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Zigger. I think perhaps the reason why this one's been on cleanup a fair length of time is because it's a specialist subject. Try listing instead on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention under Psychology. -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid psychology topic. Please, someone qualified, develop it. jaknouse 23:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I know a colleague who is an expert in dissociation at the Institute of Psychiatry, I will ask her to take a look.

--PaulWicks 18:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ambadias - I added an entry to the dissociation wiki regarding substances that can induce this state, please review and remove or keep the entry if you feel it is suitable - im not a trained psychologist so what I added could be wrong. Please message me with changes if you disagree. I also added a snippet about the film identity just for general knowledge and in case anyone was interested in seeing the film. - Ambadias

End discussion

Emotional Detachment - Same?

I would like anyone interested in this article to comment on whether emotional detachment is covering the same concept (in it's first definition). If so, the information should probably be moved here. --DanielCD 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

nonsensical

This article is nonsensical- how can I split myself from myself??? I can no more do this than detach myself from the floor I have to walk on. I am all of me, to detach myself from a part of me is a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.102.113 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article states it's hard to explain, and you've obviously never experienced it before. 96.53.205.29 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Think of it as a very intense form of zoning out,you are aware you are zoning out, but remain in that distant zoned out state, hopefully this helps, from my own expiriences VastV0idInSpace0 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Dissociation Same as DID?

I do believe that Dissociative Identity Disorder is the modern and correct term for Multiple Personalities, rather than MP being a form of DID.

Some of the material in the DID page could be merged into here, I'm thinking of the section attempting to define dissociation. I'm not sure how much of that is useful, but it seems like duplication the way it's set up now. P L Logan 03:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dissociation is one of the defense mechanisms, the mental processes by which the mind/self protects itself.

* Multiple Personality Disorder was once in the DSM, then was removed

* Dissociative Identity Disorder is in the current DSM-IV, but we will see if it exists in the new edition.

Note that the DID syndrome was totally removed from the Personality Disorder classification. It is highly disputed whether DID is a true psychiatric/psychological disorder at all. False Memory Syndrome is considered to be operative in most cases.

DID and Dissociation are not the same thing at all. Not even close. This article is not a good one at all in its present form. It is unclear and muddled mess. Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) should be on the differentiation page, not here.

Dissociation is one of three defense mechanisms associated wtih DID, and this article should refer to this fact, and provide a link to DID, of course.

Hope I cleared a few things up for you (and others!) Thanks for posting -I am Kiwi 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing dissociation with Dissociative disorder(s)

It's clear that one of the main concerns raised by the present state of this article is the failure to discriminate between dissociation, the markers for dissociative disorders, and dissociative disorders themselves. As dissociation is such a controversial subject, it is imperative that this be clarified.

This articel is about dissociation ONLY!!! Reference to the other two topic areas should be compare and contrast, not drawing parallels.

Cheers! Empacher 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently Dissociative disorder is redirecting to Dissociation (psychology), since 2004, it probably needs an article of it's own? (Not to be confused with Dissociative identity disorder of course!) --Zeraeph 23:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you Z, but please clarify which should be a separate article?... Cheers! Empacher 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a distinction between Dissociation and Dissociative Identity Disorder. I recently deleted a reference to DID in the summary article. The references may be accurate but it does not belong in this article. (Sagefusion (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

EL added

I have added an EL on Dissociation and Trauma Archives, full text searchable articles and case studies published in the 1800s and early 1900s. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

recent vandalism revert

I have reverted change of Pierre Janet's name to Mike Douglass (who "is an American urban planner and social scientist noted for his analyses of rural-urban linkages"). ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unnecessary distinction"

The clinical status of Chu's sample is important enough to mention, even if it isn't necessary. Merckelbach singled out Chu et al. specifically as worthy of being "interpreted with caution," given its sample was a patients group. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A sourced criticism is a valid criticism as far as I'm concerned. WLU (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article removed

I've removed the following article from the EL section:

• Recent developments in the theory of dissociation

It's fine as a source, but the EL section is not a holding area for sources waiting to be added (that's the talk page). WLU (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

added two refs

I have added two references on dissociation to the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

restoring data

I have restored data to the article from the DSM and another source directly related to the topic of dissociation. Though Merckelbach appears to be RS in the cases cited, we should be careful about using one researcher's work too many times in the article as per undue weight. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The nature of dissociated thoughts is not scientifically determinable. We shouldn't present opinions as fact. And there's no point in keeping a tangent about other rare effects of abuse, especially with a source as weak as this (note that it doesn't support the "often" in Jack's sentence, and support for the rest is only indirect).

Besides that, both of your changes introduced grammatical or flow problems. Please proof-read. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing weak about Salter as a source. She's an noted 30-year-career expert and that particular book has been praised by other experts, for example: "A scholar and clinician of great courage, wisdom, and empathy, Anna C. Salter has written an outstanding book. Pulling together diverse research and theory, she challenges unexamined assumptions and routine interventions. She has created a thoughtful, practical guide that deserves to be on every clinician's bookshelf." --Ken Pope, Ph.D. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No research is cited to support her statements on that page, and those statements are not even equivalent to your summarization of them here. She doesn't describe them as symptoms. She doesn't say they occur often. She doesn't mention physical or sexual abuse. She's not even discussing dissociation primarily.

So yes, as used, it's a very weak source. I would prefer to remove it in favour of opening with a peer-reviewed study that cites its sources and actually focuses on dissociation, but at the very least the irrelevant mention of other symptoms should be removed or moved to Child abuse. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As per RE and Jack. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The DSM-IV-TR clearly states that the important personal information is "usually of a traumatic or stressful nature." IMO, this should be included in the lead as it was before.

I am open to a compromise on this, but not the entire deletion of it. ResearchEditor (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Diagnosed mostly in individuals with a history of trauma" was my idea of a compromise. It conveys the bare data, without drawing the non-attributed interpretation that most dissociated thoughts are traumatic.

But I would accept a sentence to the effect of "According to DSM, dissociative amnesia usually affects information of a stressful or traumatic nature." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would accept the above without the phrase "according to the DSM." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would not. Controversial opinions must be clearly attributed in the text. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that this is a controversial statement. The DSM is probably the best resource and the most neutral resource available on this topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the following material on the page, due to its importance to this topic. "Other symptoms found along with dissociation in victims of traumatic abuse can cause the victim to misidentify the symptoms as the source of the problem; usually referred to as "sequelae to abuse", these symptoms include anxiety, depression, chronic pain, drug and alcohol abuse, self-multilation and suicidal ideation or actions." ResearchEditor (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added another two references supporting the inclusion of that information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with the recent edits made by Jack-A-Roe. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hammond et al. 1998

I've a copy of Hammond, D. Corydon; Brown, Daniel P.; Scheflin, Alan W. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393702545. for two weeks via the magic of Interlibrary Loan (wikipedia owes me $2 and that's not counting overdue fees). If anyone would like verification of how this source is represented on any of the pages, please let me know in the next two weeks. WLU (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the entire book. Let's work out a version on the talk page that all can agree with. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis

Does anyone have any proof as to why it should be listed on this page?Altron7868 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Somaform and psychoform

No data on somaform and psychoform dissociation. What they are. And how they are different Kazuba (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

the rewrite of the intro by user:Mr Dissociation

does the rewrite of the introductory paragraph by user:Mr Dissociation who has made one contribution to wikipedia concern anyone else? i only wonder because its a fairly extensive rewrite, and school is back in. badmachine (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It reads OK as an addition to the intro, but not as a stand-alone intro. I've re-written and added the sources cited, as well as replacing the last good version of the lead I could find. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of the opening paragraph is problematic because it describes dissociation as a mental decompensation. I have worked with dissociative patients, published articles on dissociation, and have attended conferences on dissociation for nearly a quarter of a century. I would certainly not use the word "decompensation," nor have I ever heard dissociation described as such by people in the dissociative disorders field. Dissociation involves (usually) sudden alterations of functioning that the person cannot explain--not a decompensation. The restored first paragraph's characterization of dissociation as involving "compartmentalization" is also problematic because dissociation takes many forms, only some of which involve apparent compertmentalization. Note, for example, that neither DSM-IV nor the ICD-10 describe dissociation with the word "compartmentalization." The restored first paragraph is correct that dissociation is usually (although by no means always) associated with trauma. In short, the restored first paragraph has sufficient errors of fact and sufficient distortions of fact about dissociation that it ill-serves its purpose as an introductory paragraph to the word "dissociation." I thank the above Editor for adding the new references to the reference list. Reference 6, however, is not the Dell 2006 reference that is cited in the new text. Reference 6 should be: <Dell, P. F. (2006). A new model of dissociative identity disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29, 1-26>.Mr Dissociation (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about Pierre Janet is completely incorrect. I am at a loss to explain how the original writer of this paragraph came to make these statements about Janet. Janet was the originator of the concept of dissociation, but he did not coin the term "splitting," nor did he emphasize the role of dissociation as a defense against trauma. Janet eschewed the entire idea of psychological defenses. Psychological defenses are the heart of Freudian psychology, not Janetian psychology. Thus, the paragraph about Janet and dissociation should be rewritten or replaced.Mr Dissociation (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaced Dell, and re-wrote intro based on the DSM. If you have experience Mr. Dissociation, you're quite welcome to re-write the page (using reliabe sources of course, preferrably medically reliable sources). Please remember that the page should be neutral and involve no original research - just what is uncontestably understood and accepted by at least a minority in mainstream psychology and psychiatry. The Janet paragraph is completely unsourced, so can be removed; feel free to re-write yourself, I'll assume you'll do a good job! Though I initially removed your work outright, after reviewing it a bit further I felt it was a good follow-up to the first paragraph with nice detailing and sources, but the first paragraph was still necessary to give the very first, most basic introduction to the concept (per WP:LEAD).

Please feel free to continue writing, re-writing and expanding. Wikipedia would be best served if you were to demonstrate your expertise through expansion with reliable sources - if you need any help with footnoting (or other topics), please feel free to ask me on my talk page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a 'green light' to proceed. I hope to find a bit of time with some regularity during the next two months so that I can update the Wikipedia entry on "Dissociation." A television series about a person with DID will begin in January (on Showtime). I anticipate that it will generate increased traffic to Wikipedia entries that bear on that topic. I am hoping to make those visits to Wikipedia as informative and accurate as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Dissociation (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There's no real need to green light anything, we are encouraged to be bold and expand the pages. No-one is really in charge. The only caveat I have is we are obligated to report the solidly mainstream. That's somewhat difficult in areas of controversy, as I believe dissociation to be. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that I am new to Wikipedia, but I must say that the editing of my entries is somewhat frustrating. Twice I have written very precisely (and accurately) about Dissociative Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, and twice an editor has revised what I wrote and made the text incorrect. There are multiple kinds of DDNOS (see DSM-IV), only one kind of which is clearly associated with extensive trauma. Also, the editor changed the Boon and Draijer reference to one that is different from the one that I carefully specified in my last revision: Boon, S. & Draijer, N. (1993). Multiple personality disorder in The Netherlands: A study on reliability and validity of the diagnosis. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Mr Dissociation (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It does say that all edits will be mercilessly re-edited, it's kinda par for the course. Regards the Boon & Draijer, I can't tell what kind of source that is - a book? I had thought it a journal article based on the others added. Could you provide a weblink to some sort of unambiguous identification? Without knowing what it is, it's harder to make it accessible and use the correct template.

I had thought DDNOS was a generic diagnosis, if there's a more refined sub-category then that should be used - the most specific identifier available. Unfortunately I don't have access to the DSM or Putnam et al. so I can't specify what it actually is. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy on dissociative disorder and PTSD

I'm a neurologist, not a psychiatrist. I have recently been reading Paul McHugh's book "Try to Remember", U. Chicago press ( <http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=334563> ). McHugh was the longtime chairman of the psychiatry department at Hopkins. I think the book raises a lot of important issues, not the least of which is the remarkable (and probably unreasonable) increase in the diagnosis of PTSD in the last 15 years. McHugh is an opponent of both diagnoses (dissociative disorder and PTSD), and thinks that they are massively overused. In my practice, certainly, the diagnosis of PTSD is overused. One recent patient came with a diagnosis of PTSD secondary to childbirth. I am not qualified to edit this particular page. However, I think it is dishonest not to mention conflicting opinions. Pollira (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannot print page 3 (of the 5) of this entry. ProjectWorldPeace (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dissociative disorder

There is another article called dissociative disorder. I think it would make sense to cover the topic of dissociation and dissociative disorder in one article. At the moment this article switched without warning between one or the other topic. It is very difficult to talk about one without the other they are so tightly linked. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Janet's description superior to Freud's?

The article says: "Janet's descriptions of dissociation and dissociative symptoms are generally considered to be ground-breaking (and much superior to Freud's descriptions of those phenomena)." That sentence has four sources listed, but I suspect (can't check any of them) that those sources support "ground-breaking" rather than "superior". The "superior" part sounds like POV and/or OR to me, because the very next sentence says that "clinicians have routinely preferred Freud's motivational explanation," and later in the article it refers to "studies which suggest that dissociation is correlated with a history of trauma." I can imagine interpretations of all these phrases that could make them all simultaneously true, but my net impression from the article as a whole is that Freud's theory is widely accepted, and that someone who didn't agree with it threw in an unsupported parenthetical statement indicating that Janet's theory is widely believed to be superior. Can someone with access to the cited sources find out whether the sources actually support the statement that Janet's description is "generally considered to be ... much superior to Freud's"? Even if those sources do in fact say that, I think the article needs cleanup to make that statement consistent with the other lines that seem to contradict it. --Elysdir (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What??

"Dissociative experiences are further characterized by the varied maladaptive mental constructions of an individual's natural imaginative capacity"

This sentence is ridiculous. Reads like someone wrote it out of a dictionary and was trying to intentionally confuse, not convey actual information.

Nott All Who Wander 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissociation (psychology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=9696
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070720221249/https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/handle/1794/1129 to https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/handle/1794/1129

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissociation (psychology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911152635/http://www.johnbriere.com/methodological%20csa%20jccp%201992.pdf to http://www.johnbriere.com/methodological%20csa%20jccp%201992.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Language needs clarification

This sentence: "Difference between hypnosis and dissociation: one is suggested, imposed by self or other, meaning dissociation is generally more spontaneous altering of awareness", could do with being improved or rewritten by a native speaker.

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbarton7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Phrenic490.

— Assignment last updated by Phrenic490 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callalily4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AveryLong5, MorganH2024, Emoe2020, Whitneyaj.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Succumbed to unscientific psychoanalysis?

This sounds innacurate, biased, and needs some sort of citation or proof. 71.105.133.203 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this article is outdated and presents many controversial claims as fact. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll work on fixing it and adding better citations, any additional help is appreciated! ¿VØ!D? ☄ 11:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)