Talk:Dissociation (psychology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] Article removed

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

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)

[edit] added two refs

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

[edit] 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)