Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:19, 11 September 2012

Dissociative identity disorder received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dissociative identity disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Start to December, 2004 January–December, 2005 January–February, 2006 February–December, 2006 January–October, 2007 November, 2007 – August, 2008 September, 2008 – January, 2012 January, 2012 – February, 2012 February, 2012 – July, 2012 July, 2012 July, 2012 to present /Multiple personality controversy

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Clean list of sources

Please use this section to list any sources not already in the page. Please do not use it to discuss them. Please do not add signatures or datestamps as this will cause them to be archived.

Iatrogenic model has been renamed "sociocognitive", google scholar search

No date

• - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
• NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
• Staniloiu - Neuroimaging and Dissociative Disorders No date and I'm not sure where it was published, possibly Advances in Brain Imaging? Might be a conference presentation - WLU

2000

• Phelps, 2000 - Dissociative identity disorder: the relevance of behavior analysis

2001

• 2001 Sutker, Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology

2002

• Merckelbach, 2002 - Alters in dissociative identity disorder

2003

• Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (chapter 5)

2004

2005

2006

• 2006 Rieber, The bifurcation of the self

2007

• Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
• Lilienfeld, 2007 - Psychological treatments that cause harm

2008

• Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
• Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.

Giesbrecht, 2008 - Cognitive Processes in Dissociation]

2009

• Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
• Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.
• Kring, 2009, Abnormal psychology
• McKay, 2009 - Psychogenic amnesia: when memory complaints are medically unexplained
• Gillig, Paulette Marie (2009). "Dissociative Identity Disorder". Psychiatry. Psychiatry. pp. 24–29.

2010

• Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
• Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X
• Lynn et al. 2010, Dissociation and dissociative identity disorder: Treatment guidelines and cautions
• Bravman, 2010, Controversy: Dissociative Identity Disorder
• Staniloiu, 2010, Searching for the Anatomy of Dissociative Amnesia

2011

• Lilienfeld, 2011, Distinguishing Scientific From Pseudoscientific Psychotherapies (possibly useful)
• 2011 Tavris, Multiple Personality Deception
• Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis, 2011, Michel. Hersen, Deborah C. Beidel - seems to have a lot of previewable text, and a lot of pages...

2012

• Stern DB (2012). "Witnessing across time: accessing the present from the past and the past from the present". The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 81 (1): 53–81. PMID 22423434. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Dalenberg CJ, Brand BL, Gleaves DH, Dorahy MJ, Loewenstein RJ, Cardeña E, Frewen PA, Carlson EB, Spiegel D (2012). "Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation". Psychological Bulletin. 138 (3): 550–88. doi:10.1037/a0027447. PMID 22409505. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Lynn, S. J.; Lilienfeld, S. O.; Merckelbach, H.; Giesbrecht, T.; van der Kloet, D. (2012). "Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders: Challenging Conventional Wisdom". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 21 (1): 48–53. doi:10.1177/0963721411429457. ISSN 0963-7214.
• Nakic & Thomas, 2012, Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Courtroom

Official release of DSM-5:: May 18-22, 2013

The 166th APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-22, 2013, will mark the official release of DSM-5. DID in the DSM 5 This is just an update of the update. :) ~ty (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. To say this has been controversial has been an understatement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Casliber: Mark your calender Sir! It sounds official! I am excited!!! :) ~ty (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Full free pdf online: 2011 REVISED Adult Guidelines for treating DID

Full free pdf online: International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (2011). The full pdf is online for free by going to this page and clicking on the orange link - about the middle of the page: Open a copy of the 2011 REVISED Adult Guidelines I gave a link before to this reference, but it was not to a free pdf, but I had the pdf on my desk top, but could not remember where I got it from. I found it, so here is the link to the full article - all 74 pages. This one article answers so many questions that have been presented here. Please everyone, give it a read. Thank you! :) ~ty (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

extended discussion on Boysen's article by Tylas at peer review to here

• My thoughts on this study: First it is a lit review. Second, Boysen is saying 93% of the children studied in the literature reviewed were in a clinical setting. I don't see how that small number of clinical subjects can translate to anything in the general population. Third, children outside of a clinical setting are most likely trying to survive in a hostile environment. Fourth, Children are less self aware, and much less verbally expressive than adults, especially when they are being controlled by adults. If they have DID, they are often victims of their parents and children usually generalize the characteristics of their parents to all adults. If parents are not to be trusted, why would adults outside the family be? From the DMS-IV (1994), p. 485 (in the DID section): "In preadolescent children, particular care is needed in making the diagnosis because the manifestations may be less distinctive than in adolescents and adults." Fifth, many of the studies reviewed were prior to a more recent understanding of what DID is, it's symptoms and how to Dx it. The DSM-III, originally published in 1980, formally specified diagnostic criteria for MPD, and every other recognized mental illness. The DSM-III-R (1987) states on p. 271: "Onset of Multiple Personality Disorder is almost invariably in childhood, but most cases do not come to clinical attention until much later." On the same page it also states: "Recent reports suggest that this disorder is not nearly so rare as it has commonly been thought to be." Not until the DSM-IV, in 1994, was there overt recognition in the DSM that DID could be diagnosed in children. Children are addressed in a single sentence (p. 484). Explicit attention is not given to DID in children until the DSM-5, and the exact form it will take is still to be determined. These are just some of the reasons why we don't have more child DID diagnoses. There is much more in my sandbox for those interested. Tylas

• moved here from peer review. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Piper & Merskey also discuss children, so I moved some information into that section along with the citation. I'd like to do that with the whole "controversy" section, break it up throughout the appropriate main sections, as its current existence is still a bad idea per WP:STRUCTURE.

I also added a new section on (the lack of) definitions, incorporating information from other sections. I'm pretty sure it can be improved and I'm not sure if there's now duplication or incomplete sections elsewhere in the page, so a review would be good.

Also note that the issue raised with "in children" - basing it on a single citation - is also there with the borderline personality subsection of symptoms. Though in that case it's actually sourced to a multi-author chapter of a textbook. I think there are more citations of this point elsewhere, I haven't turned any up yet but I'm keeping my eyes open. DSM does mention it though, so FWIW I've added it. Found and integrated several more references, so this is addressed.

Regarding Tylas' above comments, personal thoughts and observations are WP:OR and therefore not a reason to change the page. Boysen's overall point isn't to generalize about DID in children, it's to discuss the science to date regarding children and in particular how they illuminate DID as a construct. Citing DSM-III and IV rather than DSM-IV-TR (or DSM-V when it comes out) isn't ideal; IV-TR only discusses children to distinguish symptoms from imaginative play and the absence or possible distortion of childhood biographical memories (my DSM preview cuts out at 529 though, I'll try to check that page tomorrow). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to waiting for the peer review comments before moving forward? Are we back to debating this, or are we waiting. Please cite references, not your POV. Tanya~talk page 00:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC) This is a zoo! No more editing needs to be done without our peer reviewer here. Tanya~talk page 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is it that if I edit, it gets reverted, but WLU can edit away as he wants? Please show current review articles for this section, or wait for the peer review to give his advice. Tanya~talk page 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

because WLU doesn't edit from personal opinion and uses reliable sources. . MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that is what I do and why I am not allowed to edit this page? You don't call WLU's POV diff that people with DID actually have multiple personalities a POV? You keep attacking me and this is the reason you give? Tanya~talk page 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Mathew - You do get that WLU is cherry picking information. The consensus model of the profession CANNOT be reflected in cherry picked citations. Tanya~talk page 02:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please Sir, show me the valid references for the section he wrote about children and DID. Tanya~talk page 01:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be Boysen, 2011 and Piper & Merskey, 2004. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

These are not POV's: The reference is the DSM and even the page numbers are given. The DSM-III, originally published in 1980, formally specified diagnostic criteria for MPD, and every other recognized mental illness. The DSM-III-R (1987) states on p. 271: "Onset of Multiple Personality Disorder is almost invariably in childhood, but most cases do not come to clinical attention until much later." On the same page it also states: "Recent reports suggest that this disorder is not nearly so rare as it has commonly been thought to be." Not until the DSM-IV, in 1994, was there overt recognition in the DSM that DID could be diagnosed in children. Children are addressed in a single sentence (p. 484). Explicit attention is not given to DID in children until the DSM-5, and the exact form it will take is still to be determined. Tanya~talk page 01:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would we cite, or even discuss, DSM-III when DSM-IV-TR is the most recent DSM and DSM-V is coming out? It's not relevant bar historical information. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU - Please cite exactly what Piper and Mersky say about children, is it even relevant here - and this Piper & Merskey paper is the one that Ross, a giant in this area of study, ) reviewed and said "The two papers contain errors of logic and scholarship. Contrary to the conclusions in the critique, DID has established diagnostic reliability and concurrent validity, the trauma histories of affected individuals can be corroborated, and the existing prospective treatment outcome literature demonstrates improvement in individuals receiving psychotherapy for the disorder." I know we have gone over this already before in the talk pages. As for the Boysen, it does not mention anything you have written in his abstract and certainly has not in his conclusion. The study gives no preference. I have posted the conclusion and don't see the need to take up space again. Also should we use the DSM 5 or not. I keep getting 2 different stories here. I don't care either way, but stick to one way. I do prefer to use the newest and best information out there, so I do vote for using the proposed DSM 5.Tanya~talk page 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In Piper & Merskey, 2004, The Persistence of Folly: A Critical Examination of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Part I. The Excesses of an Improbable Concept, children are discussed on page 596, in the brief section "The Rarity of DID in Children". It's a full text PDF, you can read it yourself for free by clicking on the link. It's not a study, it's a review article, thus a secondary MEDRS, and Ross' criticisms are also discussed (though I find them extremely weak). What specific points in the article that are cited to Boysen do you think are not verified?

When DSM-V comes out we can certainly mention it, though I would argue that a discussion of DSM-IV would have to remain, perhaps abbreviated, for a while since much of the recent literature is based on it. But we'll see, I didn't think removing the section on DSM-V was a good idea in the first place - though since it's still prospective I can see why removing it is defensible. Perhaps an abbreviated version would be acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No Sir, it's old. We know there is problems with the old literature. This page is not a debate between history and current knowledge. Citations should be no more than 5 years old. I will read the paper, but it's still history, not the current consensus of mainstream experts on DID. Tanya~talk page 02:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Boysen - I pointed them out step by step here. Tanya~talk page 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Piper and Merskey - read page 529. The little paragraph that even mentions children talks about cases prior to 1993. That is historic. Please cite current information. Tanya~talk page 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I did, Boysen, 2011. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ross' reply to Piper & Merskey didn't actually discuss childhood DID. He talked about childhood trauma and abuse a lot, but looking at all the instances where "child" appeared in the article, I didn't see any discussion of children diagnosed with DID. It was a quick skim, I could be wrong - I wanted to add it to the "on children" section but didn't because as far as I can tell there's no mention. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Tanya~talk page 02:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned Ross above. It's only tangentially related to the topic, which is why I started my comment with "incidentally".

How am I cherry-picking? I'm relying on peer-reviewed, secondary sources - review articles published in good journals - published by psychiatrists, psychologists and related experts. I'll admit I spend more time on the iatrogenic hypothesis, but then again you constantly challenge that model. I look up sources to address your criticisms, I find them fairly easily, and I add them to the page. Because I have limited time I don't end up spending as much time reading up on the traumagenic side. That aspect of the page should be expanded as well, I just don't happen to be doing it. My preferred way to address claims that my edits are undue weight is to find as many sources as I can that demonstrate my edits are supported by reliable, scholarly sources. It's a pretty good way of doing things, one that directly addresses NPOV's statement that weight is demonstrated through sources, not editor assertion.

The accusation of cherry-picking is an unpleasant one given the amount and quality of sources I use. Please note that I am not happy that I have to defend my edits yet again, despite the number and quality of sources that support them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I have never been able to actually work on the DID page, any work I do you revert. You have not defended them from me. I am isolated to the talk page. You pick articles that you feel will support your minority POV and you take the introduction from articles that argue your POV and use them as a reference to support your POV. I do not challenge the model. The mainstream consensus of experts in the field of DID challenge the model. pdf file (p.122-124) Tanya~talk page 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You see isolation on the talk page, I see a failure to garner consensus for your edits and opinions. For instance, the opinion that "my" POV is a minority one - this is questionable considering the number of source that support it. And even if it were a minority opinion, it is certainly a substantial, well-documented and highly reliable one (more accurately, a large number of sources that discuss and elaborate on it). The idea that there is a mainstream consensus of experts rather than a bitterly divided scholarly topic again seems like an opinion rather than a fact. Certainly the traumagenic hypothesis is one notable opinion, but it is not the only one and it is not so overwhelming that other opinions should be eliminated.

So WP is not about mainstream consensus of the experts on DID it is about you taking the side of the minority POV of DID against me. There is something really wrong here. The WP page is not what you or I want. It's suppose to reflect the mainstream consensus of the experts in DID. pdf file (p.122-124) Tanya~talk page 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If I have mis-represented a source, please name the source and explain how it is badly summarized. There's a good chance you are right, I do edit quickly and many sources are skimmed rather than read in detail. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have many times and it gets ignored by you. pdf file (p.124) For the last please see the Boysen and Piper papers. You are being nice again. I like that. :) Thank you!!!! Tanya~talk page 04:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, as I say below, feeling the need to point out that I'm "now" being nice irritates me as it comes across as quite condescending. Please don't bother, please comment on content.

That is your POV. It was a truly genuine gesture. Tanya~talk page 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked where Piper & Merskey discuss children. I linked to the article, noted the page and the section title. That's not ignoring you. Your rebuttal appeared to be that their citations were too old. That's discounting a source based on your own opinion, you'd need consensus for that. As for P&M itself being too old, that's a subject for discussion; though relatively old, it's also relatively classic, neatly summarizes the critical position, and has a fair number of citations. It's the kind of thing that could be kicked to the reliable sources noticeboard. But I don't believe it is badly summarized, I'd have to see a juxtaposition of the uses on the page and what is objectionable to comment further.

Boysen is a recent review article on DID in children - their importance to the theoretical questions of diagnosis. You don't seem to say much about Boysen beyond that you haven't read it, both on this talk page and on your subpage discussion where you mostly note that the statements it verifies are not discussed in the abstract or conclusion. I would therefore suggest they are discussed in the body. You can verify independently if you get a copy. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where Piper and Merskey talk about children as in saying what is in the DID WP article since you just added that reference to that paragraph. Tanya~talk page 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 04:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, interstitching comments like you do here really makes it difficult to follow the discussion. Responding to your substantive point, it is predicated on the assertion that your opinions represent the mainstream consensus of experts on DID. I do not believe you have backed up this assertion, and in fact the number and publication views of those who explicitly disbelieve the traumagenic hypothesis suggests, as I have said before, that either the traumagenic hypothesis is not the mainstream view, or that there is a substantial minority of scholars publishing their doubts in peer reviewed journals - and therefore discussion of their points on this page is perfectly legitimate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to my "substantive point" - I am working on it in this sandbox since we have done this numerous times, I would like it one place so I don't have to keep redoing the work. This will take a while. There is about 72 pages or so just in the one 2011 Review article pdf file I address there, so be patient. When our peer review has time to catch up this his other concerns then we can address this. We should not be overwhelming him when he has made it clear he is busy and traveling. Thank you team. Of course when our peer reviewer is ready, then we can move the points here that need to be discussed further. Acceptable? Tanya~talk page 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Basing the entire page on a single article, no matter how long, is inappropriate - particularly when it is quite partisan and assumes one view is correct. Making the page reflect the POV in that article as if it were the mainstream scientific consensus when it hasn't been demonstrated that the traumagenic view is the mainstream POV is also incorrect. You are mistaking a view you agree with, and a view that contains no dissenting discussion, with the right view. As I've said many times, the number and quality of sources discussing the non-traumagenic position indicates it is, at least, a substantial minority within the field and therefore deserves a serious, not dismissive, discussion. That being said, the ISSTD's guidelines can and should be used in the page itself. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU - You are so caught up in your own fringe POV that you will not look at the facts Sir. What you accuse me of is what you are doing, not me. Your POV is something to the effect that watching TV and reading a book causes DID - but as I have repeatedly pointed out there is NO research to back up your claim. pdf file (p.124) With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. Personally, I think the most plausible alternative to trauma is infection of neural tissue by space aliens, but so far no one has taken me seriously. Crushing, that. I will answer more of this below in the section: main controversy on the DID page. Tanya~talk page 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

What does this section have to do with anything? Many disorders overlap with DID, the most common would be PTSD. This section is confusing and out of context.

"From the WP DID article: Between 50 and 66% of patients also meet the criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD), and nearly 75% of patients with BPD also meet the criteria for DID with considerable overlap between the two conditions in terms of personality traits, cognitive and day-to-day functioning and ratings by clinicians. Both groups also report higher than general population rates of physical and sexual abuse, and patients with BPD also score highly on measures of dissociation. The DSM states that acts of self-mutilation, impulsivity and rapid changes in interpersonal relationships "may warrant a concurrent diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder".

Personality parts have various disorders, but that does not change the main Dx being DID. Read the DSM IV on page 529 to explain this starting with the 2nd paragraph that begins with "The Dx of DID takes precedence over..... Tanya~talk page 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

BPD seems to be especially noteworthy; though that section is based only on the DSM and the 2011 textbook, I'm pretty sure I've seen a discussion of the overlap before as a fairly major point about DID. I'll try to expand if I find more sources.

This is a misreading. "Personality parts" do not have various disorders. The person does. If that person has DID, other dissociative disorders are subsumed under the DID dx. However, if the person has other Axis I and/or Axis II disorders, then those are also diagnosed. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The DSM's point in that discussion is that DID takes precedence over other dissociative disorders; if you have a diagnosis of DID, you can't also have a diagnosis of DDNOS, dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue or depersonalization disorder. In case your preview cuts out, the rest of the sentence is basically a list of the other dissociative disorders. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the start and of course DID subsumes the other DD's. PTSD, borderline, are ALL subsumed under the one DX of DID IF the patient has DID. I will find you the references for this, but it seems such common knowledge, but what the heck. DSM is best ref most likely. Tanya~talk page 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are enough sources and discussions, it might merit DID's second spin-off article and {{main}}, diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, with a section for every major Axis I or II diagnosis that presents difficulties in distinguishing it from DID.

As far as I've seen you are wrong, DID does not take precedence over other diagnoses beyond the dissociative disorders; hence the section on comorbidities. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is either address them all or none. If you are going to address one, then let it be the one that is most often co-morbid with DID and that is PTSD. Tanya~talk page 02:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain better what you are talking about. You are not making any sense. Better yet, I will find you some quotes to explain to you what is meant by this. Tanya~talk page 02:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've only found sources discussing BPD in that detail and manner, so I've only expanded BPD. Possibly this is simply due to me looking for them, which I haven't done for comparable comorbidities. If PTSD has considerable overlap and comorbidities, I have no objection to that aspect being expanded as well. While I could see PTSD being comorbid with DID, I don't think it has the same overlap in terms of behaviour compared to DID the way BPD does (see for instance the information added in this edit). In other words, though many patients may be comorbid for DID and PTSD, I don't know if the two diagnoses would be mistaken for each other the same way, or if there would be such an issue of diagnostic substitution or determining if a patient has only BPD, only DID, only PTSD or some combination of the three. I'm not sure what else you're confused about. It makes sense to me, but I wrote it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir, notice here how you say "I could see" and "I don't think" - those are your own opinions. You do this often, yet both you and Mathew hit me for doing it. Tanya~talk page 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir, the problem here is that a mistaken Dx is due to therapist error. This has nothing to do with what DID is, or anything do do with the person with DID. This is simply a problem of lack of education and experience among therapists. I have read this about the therapist error many times, but here is the first ref that I found. I can find others if needed. Howell 2011 - pg 2. "Because DID has erroneously been thought to be rare (because highly dissociative people tend to present polysymptomatically and because the disorder is so often hidden), assessing and treating clinicians have often missed the diagnosis.... and so on. By the way, thank you for having a rational discussion with me. I appreciate it when you discuss like this. Tanya~talk page 03:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest my opinions are adequate reason to adjust the main page or discount sources, nor do I use them to demand other editors change their minds or that the whole page be rewritten to portray one side of a dispute as a minority position. For instance, my opinion of Howell is quite low because she seems to publish mostly in books by Karnac Press - but am not arguing she can not be used. Note that I am speculating and writing within the framework of reliable sources, not solely my own opinion - for instance, I was able to turn up several sources discussing the overlap of BPD and DID relatively quickly. These sources then formed the basis for my edits to the actual page.

I find it markedly condescending when you praise me for having a rational discussion. Please don't bother. If I'm behaving "rationally", all I am looking for is a rational reply. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 04:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Personality parts" are not give additional diagnoses to DID, the person is. In DID there is only one person who has dissociated identities. If that person has other dissociative disorders, those are subsumed under the one dx DID. In addition to DID, the person is often diagnosed with other Axis I and Axis II disorders such Borderline personality disorder and (often) several others. DSM 5 is not finalized and is not published and will not be until next year. So we only have access to the "proposed" version, not the finalized version. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for setting that straight, Sir. Tanya~talk page 15:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

moved from peer review page until reviewer has a chance to respond - don't want to overwhelm him with our continuing comments!

• Expert consensus and the main issue of the DID page: I will leave the in-depth information in my sandbox until everyone has had time to read and reply on the DID talk page. I do understand we have the suggestions made by the peer reviewer to attend to first, but this is long and I don't want to blindside anyone, so read when you have time. Editors please, let's give our peer reviewer time to catch up before replying to this on the DID talk page. Thank you.

• The world's top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). pdf file (p.124) The expert consensus presents 3 models for DID etiology and the SCM is not one of them. There is NO empirical support for the SCM. pdf file(p.122-124)

• Reference: Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 (2011). The full pdf file is online for free. Tanya~talk page 02:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is/are there any source substantiating your assertion that these are the top researches in DID? Is/are any of those sources from somewhere other than the ISSTD? These are certainly experts on one aspect of DID, the traumagenic hypothesis, but that's not the sole source of publications on DID. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I did not post this here. It can be deleted. It is repetition of what I did post below. Tanya~talk page 22:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Main controversy on the DID page

Since the topic was moved here and addressed above by WLU, I will respond:

To answer WLU's continued support of his fringe POV of the SC methods: please note the huge list of the top experts in DID that contributed to the recent (2011) work. pdf file (p.115-187)

Answer: I am drawing from mainstream consensus documents. As for the question of weight to be given to the SCM, the APA (in the DSM)and the ISSTD give at the most passing mention to the SCM. The ISSTD document explicitly states that there is no empirical research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

* What is the mainstream consensus re: traumagenisis?

Answer: Where does the consensus model come from? It has to be from the American Psychiatric Association (who develops and publishes the DSM, of course), and the research specialists in the field of dissociative disorders. Where else would you get it? There are 3 MODELS that are considered by the APA and all 3 models should be presented on the WP DID page. pdf file (p.122-123)

* How much weight is to be given to dissenting views?

Answer: The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is actual research for the SCM. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124)

Bottom line: Three methods of etiology are supported by the expert consensus. None of those include SG methods. pdf file (p.122-124) The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is NO actual research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

See my sandbox if more detailed information is needed, but this should have answered the question adequately Tanya~talk page 16:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Posting the same link multiple times doesn't make that link any more convincing to me personally, nor does it make sources disappear. The ISSTD guidelines, in my opinion, does little more than demonstrate that theirs is only one of several viewpoints. Quite clearly, the large number of peer reviewed articles critical of the traumagenic hypothesis indicates there are people who believe the SCM or at least a non-traumagenic model, has some utility and truth value, and in at least one author's view (PMID 21829044, Boysen, 2011), the issues have not been empirically resolved adequately. And the DSM is a descriptive document, it doesn't make conclusions on etiology, itself noting that there are issues with the traumagenic origins of DID (not to mention the most recent version is 12 years old). Further, even if the APA came to an explicit conclusion (and I don't think it has), that doesn't mean people can't dissent and disagree, and that those disagreements shouldn't be noted.

You calling the ISSTD guidelines the mainstream consensus doesn't make it the mainstream consensus, and doesn't make dissenting publications disappear. You can keep repeating your belief that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus, I'll keep pointing to the many sources that state criticisms. And again, even if the ISSTD document was the mainstream consensus, the dissenting opinions are not fringe theories and per WP:NPOV, should be discussed.

I would appreciate it if you would stop repeating the same comments in different sections. I see and understand your point, I think it's at minimum ignoring several other sources. We've both said these things in the past, there is no point I see in repeating them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU - I would appreciate it if you would stop pushing your minority/fringe POV on this page. This again Sir is your POV. The multiple links lead directly to the page number so all editors can see that what I am saying is the consensus of the mainstream experts on DID, none of this is my own opinion. You attack me if I ref. everything and you attack me if I don't. It's been going on since the first day I came to this page (without the swearing now) and it's getting really old. Please stop. You wanted everything cited that I say - so I am. A 2011 paper written by many experts in the field is ideal, Just because it was then adopted by the ISSTD does not make it less valid. What I present is that of the Expert consensus on DID! Read the 74 page long paper Sir, They call it - "the expert consensus" - this is my not opinion, it is what is - it is the mainstream consensus of the experts in DID. I have to run but when I come back I will find those exact page numbers for you where it is stated that these DID experts say that this paper reflects the mainstream consensus of the experts in DID and I will give you the direct quotes. pdf file (p.back in a bit with this) Tanya~talk page 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WLU And using the guidelines of the same organization, ISSTD, over and over does not follow WP:MEDRS and is POV:

• "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)."
• "Systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies." (ISSTD published guidelines based on one review of the literature and no randomized studies.)

Note that Kluft is over represented in the sources for the ISSTD guidelines. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply: You need only give evidence that you've heard and understood my quite reasonable points and I will no longer have need to repeat them.

Reply to Mathew - Would that not be your personal opinion that Kluft is over represented? And does it matter if he is, there are so many DID Experts that contributed to that study. Tanya~talk page 20:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How many times are we going to keep going in circles? We have done that and WLU keeps taking a phrase from the introduction of an article and using that like it's some proof, while at the same time reverting the work done by those that do not support his SG method POV. This is a circus - round and round and round again. It's crazy! There are 3 models supported by the Mainstream Expert consensus and those should be used. The SG method is a joke. It is what is pushed by the media. This is a serious mental disorder, not some pop culture book to wow the public. I am not getting run off by the circus. I am staying here. Tanya~talk page 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, I suggest that you drop it for now until others weigh in. Repeating the same thing over and over on this talk page is bordering on disruptive. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. It suggests be concise, keep discussions focused, avoid repeating your own lengthy posts and (among other guidelines):

Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice.

You are violating these guidelines. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

One cannot violate a guideline, but because the few caps I used bother you, I did remove them. Could you give WLU the same lecture please? He has been repeating that same old SC method POV since I arrived on this page. He reverts anything he does not agree with. What is the deal? Why don't you see those things as disruptive? It's getting so dang old! I wrote a short little paragraph, WLU answered with his same old repetition, the same story, the same old Piper and Merkey references that we have seen over and over and over again by him, yet I am the one that gets yelled at. What's up Mathew? The other day you said you attacked me because I did not reference things enough, now that I am, you complain that I am. The references I have been giving refer to various page of the document, so that all editors reading this talk page can find what I am talking about. Also, I was told by both of you to reference everything I say so that it does not seem like my own opinion, so I am. The 2011 expert consensus guidelines summarize the consensus of the mainstream experts, I see no need to go back and find and reference older material, for a talk page, that says the exact same thing. Tanya~talk page 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tylas, please read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines - It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, including:

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue.
• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
• Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.
• Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.
• Avoid excessive emphasis
• Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, should be strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.
• It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.

The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Mathew: You Sir need to stay objective and not change the subject at hand - which is DID. To merely cite WP:MEDRS without reference to the specific relevant section you have in mind is citation-bullying. What am I supposed to do with this? Plow through the whole document and come up with my best guess as to what you think is relevant? Be specific in your citations or don't make them. If you want to know what I mean, look at my citations, where I'm very specific. This citation-bullying is an old tactic on WP, and it's an act of bad faith. Don't do it. Give a reference to the section you think relevant. Give me a quote. Make your case or be silent. - Oh I was bold. I will add pretty please to that. :) Tanya~talk page 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to All: To answer the questions that have been presented as succinctly as possible: This is the consensus statement of the international professional association for clinicians and researchers into trauma and dissociation disorders, as you well know. There is no competing or contending association. There is no competing consensus statement. If you wish to dispute importance you may do so, but your opinion (or mine) is not of value here - none of us here are experts on DID. Any sources you may cite will also just be opinions, albeit published ones; as I've said before, the proponents of the SC model have no data. There is nothing to empirically resolve, as there is no empirical support for the SC model. The "belief" of the authors to which you refer is all they, or you have. Science is not about belief, it is about data. They have none. The other models approved by the expert consensus on DID have plenty, and the opinion of the centrist consensus is that the data indicate the validity of the traumagenic model. That is the facts, and that's what we must report, unless you wish to turn this article in a polemic for a fringe POV. Is that your intent? If so state it. If not state this is not true. Since the DSM-III, (as previously pointed out) DID has been attributed to trauma, in statements which express probability, not certainty. Science is never about certainty, but rather about degrees of probability. The consistent statement of the DSM is that DID is most likely caused by childhood trauma. I will exhaustively document all this shortly. The DSM does make explicit statements. It is mainstream because it is the professional association for the topic. Again, this is obvious. There is no conflict here. The expert consensus statement clearly explains the mainstream expert consensus on DID. There are a number of criticisms of it, as there are of the DSM, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the US Constitution, UN Charter, ad infinitum. To assert that there is no consensus because there is dispute is to misunderstand the nature of the word. When I consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged), it is clear that current usage allows "consensus" to mean a number of things, and there is conflict (lack of consensus) as to which meaning is preferred. It can mean unanimity. It can also mean majority. The central thrust of the definition given is "general agreement" or "collective opinion". You can lean on which ever flavor of the cited usages support your POV, can you not? (And you do.) So, you would have me accept that as long as there is disagreement there is no consensus? If so, state that here, in writing. If not, state that as well. Make yourself clear on this point, please.Tanya~talk page 23:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU: Please stop posting replies if you do not expect me to reply in turn. Since the questions were raised, here is my reply. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are they good? Well, obviously. So go get some. Also, just because something isn't ideal doesn't mean that it has no value. It just means that it could be better, and on this point, regarding the data associated with DID, whether it be treatment outcome, etiology, or epidemiology, there is little if any dispute in professional circles. As for your 3rd point on systematic reviews... The ISSTD guidelines do indeed encompass a literature review, but that is not its central purpose, which is to issue an updated set of official treatment guidelines, coming from the group of well known and highly respected clinicians who authored the document. The lit. review is there to provide basis for major portions of the guidelines, and occupies 16 1/4 pages - 20.5% of the document. At about 18 references per page, that a total of over 290 references. In what way do you find this deficient? How do you know there are no randomized studies in this set of 290 references? Can you provide, say, a table which lists each study in the reference list (they aren't all research studies, so you'll not have 290 rows in your table!), and the sample selection method used, when indeed it is a sample-based study? If you can't, you have no basis for that statement. But, far more important is this: Colin Ross is a psychiatrist who I'm sure I don't need to introduce to you, but for others - he has a large number of publications on dissociative disorders and has been treating DID in inpatient and outpatient settings since 1979, is a member of ISSTD, is cited 10 times in the ISSTD Treatment Guidelines document, is a co-author of that document, and has a chapter in Dell and O'Neil's ISSTD-commissioned 2009 review of the field - Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders (864 pp.). In his 2009 book (co-authored by N. Halpern), Trauma Model Therapy (pp. 63-63), he has outlined the characteristics of an ideal outcome study (be it for psychotherapy or medication). These would surely also be applicable to studies of etiology, as well. The characteristics are these: sample selection is randomized; data are gathered prospectively - starting at one point and moving through time to an end point; double-blind - no one, including the professionals involved, knows who is getting treatment who is getting pseudo-treatment or placebo; placebo-controlled - some subjects get "fake" treatment. He then lists a number of additional features of a quality study, including such things as appropriate and adequate statistical analysis, replicability, and so on. Now comes the important part: These standards are hard to meet in psychotherapy studies, and especially so when DID is involved, he asserts. He reports that most study subjects are able to figure out when they are getting placebo treatment. Furthermore, studies on DID treatment outcome are atypical, compared to other disorders, because the course of treatment is typically years (at least 5, he reports elsewhere in this book). This is a problem in a study for several reasons: it hard to retain study subjects for that long (it is not unusual for people with DID to have years of therapy, but from multiple therapists). It is unethical to determine that a subject qualifies for treatment, and thus is in need, but then withhold it for the presumed lengthy period that would be required for a DID study. Finally, getting funding for a study of this length and difficulty is itself a major hurdle. I would add that any prospective study of etiology would require either deliberate traumatizing of subjects, followed by non-treatment for years, or identification of already-traumatized subjects, followed by non-treatment years. Care to apply for funding for a study of that sort? Conclusion: We are not at any time in the immediate future likely to have any data for DID etiology and treatment outcome which is not retrospective, non-blinded, unrandomized, and lacking a placebo treatment condition. It is just not reasonable. He concludes (p. 65): "One can read the entire psychiatric literature and find almost no treatment outcome or follow-up data on complicated, highly co-morbid psychiatric inpatients. Most people with DID have been inpatients at some time, or been suicidal at some time, and all have other Axis I disorders and addictions. The treatment outcome data for DID are as strong as any other body of data for any treatment method involving highly comorbid patients." So stop asking for the impossible Sir. Tanya~talk page 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Three links to a document I am already quite aware of and a large wall of text. Please see WP:TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we concentrate on the article instead of trying to constantly get me to write in your preferred manner. That is simply deflection. The problem at hand is the article. Deflection or a "thought-terminating cliché": "...is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response..." Tanya~talk page 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Personality state?

The opening sentence says DID is characterized by "dissociated personality states", but that term is not explained here nor is it linked to an explanatory article. Since it isn't obvious to lay persons (like me) what a "personality state" is (or a dissociated one for that matter), the sentence fails to inform. Lambtron (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point and welcome to the page. It's nice to see a new editor here! Wow you are a dancer! I love that! Tanya~talk page 14:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I originally supported an exact quote from the DSM, the terms lack a widely-accepted definition. I would support going back to the DSM definition quote since, even if it isn't exact, at least has authority. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not need to go back to what you had. It simply needs to be defined. This article is a bunch of political mumbo jumbo instead of explaining what DID is. This is the problem. Tanya~talk page 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What reliable source do you suggest to verify a generally-agreed upon definition or explanation? There's an entire section on how the terms used aren't defined, making any effort complicated. In addition, the lead must of necessity be brief, making it hard to adequately reflect the disagreements and nuances of the body and literature on DID in general. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not playing your defection games. This does not need to be discussed until the peer reviewer has returned and caught up. Please just stop. Tanya~talk page 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely a dance aficionado (not even a dancer) and I know nothing about DID except what I've read in this article, but it's clear to me that valid concerns have been raised by both Tanya and WLU, and the intro must account for those collective concerns. I see that both editors are acting in good faith and both share the common goal of improving this article, but they have somehow lost sight of their unity. Please listen to each other and strive to work in harmony; you have so much potential as collaborators! It will be easy to resolve the article's problems when you stand together on common ground and work this out in a positive way. Okay, enough proselytizing already. I don't know how to rewrite the intro, but it must (1) be based on reliable sources, and (2) be explained so that I can understand it. Perhaps that can be done with some combination of layman's explanation and authoritative definition? Also, a simple example would go a long way toward explaining this to readers like me. Lambtron (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to be able to do this, but almost anything I edit gets deleted or reverted by WLU. So far it has been an impossible task. I have not even tried to edit for a while. It's hopeless right now as things are. Tanya~talk page 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had a simple explanation, we'd probably use it - and therein lies the rub. DID is an unusually acrimonious field, there's not a lot of research, and again - core terms are undefined or taken for granted. I'm not being baiting when I say there's no generally accepted definition to draw upon, DID touches on the very sense of self, awareness, memory and consciousness that is the essence of being human or using the word "I". It's hard to even talk about things like this, let alone define or study it. Should we use "personality"? How is that different from "identity"? Or "ego state"? One source noted difficulty with the definition of "amnesia", which you would think would be simple! I gather that if anyone finds a source that defines any of these terms, I could probably find a source that either defines it in a different way or disagrees with the first. And again, therein lies the rub. I added some wikilinks recently to the definitions section, and trying to figure out what link to use in a disambiguation page with two or three different possibilities within a single discipline of psychology was challenging. I dare say any one of those links could be challenged and I would concede that I may have used the wrong one. I wish I could provide a more reasonable and understandable definition or term, but I'm at a loss. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the intro paragraph seems reasonable and understandable except for a couple of things. First, I have no idea what "dissociated personality states" are. Is there a formal definition for that term? Is it the same as having two or more "identities" and, if so, isn't it redundant? On the other hand, the term doesn't belong here if it defies definition, even if coined by a reliable source. If the term stays, it needs to be explained. The other problem is the third sentence, which sounds like advice to a medical practitioner ("Malingering should be ruled out if..."). Lambtron (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had an answer...my best response is still only to suggest a direct quote from the DSM, but the only thing that adds is authority and a lack of the term "dissociated". There's no formal definition I'm aware of, perhaps others can enlighten the discussion with sources. The fact that the DSM itself uses two terms with an "or" in between suggests the previous working group is aware of the issue but couldn't address it.

The malingering point reads OK to me, but I'm open to alternative wordings. Do you think "Malingering can be a concern..." is better? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I would explain DID to a layperson; it's based on the current intro paragraph and the straightforward description at nami.org. It sums up DID in a nutshell, it's completely understandable to laypersons (this one, anyway), and it avoids jargon and details that are better suited to subsequent paragraphs. I would like to propose this (or something similar) as a replacement for the current intro, for the benefit of general readers.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), also known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is a mental disorder in which two or more distinct identities (or personality states) control a person's behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while another identity was in control. The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech, mannerisms, attitudes, thoughts, and gender orientation. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.

Comments? Lambtron (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Yes, I totally agree with you Lambtron! Look at Merek, it has a good description as well. Check out the peer review page for more issue that could use your help. Warmest welcome to the DID page! :) Tanya ✫♫♥ 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder and multiple personality disorder should not be capitalized. "Fantasy behaviour" is specific to children as well I believe. I assume you mean this to replace the first paragraph, not the whole lead? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also like that the Lambtron's paragraph does not confuse the subject by putting rule-outs in the introduction. Tanya ✫♫♥ 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: "referred to as alters" - some refer to these different identities as "alters" and some don't. There are also a variety of other terms used. This is a "proposed term" according to the article text that has a citation. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Staying with one term throughout the page, such as the term the DSM uses, being personality states is ideal. Personality states need to be defined up front however since this page is for the average reader and it should not just be assumed that they know what it means. Tanya ✫♫♥ 17:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lambtron I believe is correct. In the DSM IV it is standard practice to always capitalize the names of disorders. They are proper names. Tanya ✫♫♥ 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I made them caps, but Mathew reverted my edit. What is your reasoning Mathew? If this is standard for WP, it's cool, but as I pointed out - it's standard for the DSM IV to use caps. Tanya ✫♫♥ 18:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph would replace only the first paragraph. Unless fantasy behavior can account for DID in adults, there's no need to mention children here; that detail belongs in later paragraphs. How about this:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder, is a mental disorder in which two or more distinct identities (or personality states) control a person's behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while another identity was in control. The different identities may exhibit differences in speech, mannerisms, attitudes, thoughts, and gender orientation. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.

I love it, but wonder if it's necessary to add this section in the lede of the article. "These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, or seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by potential financial or forensic gain (malingering) or artifacts of help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder)."

Thoughts? Tanya ✫♫♥ 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I thought about eliminating it but realized that it contributes to my basic layman's understanding of this topic. I'm inclined to keep it but will defer to your judgement on the matter. Lambtron (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Appears to copy/paste or close paraphrasing too much from the lead of Dissociative Identity Disorder According to the Dup Detector, these are copied:

• behavior at different times when under the control of one identity the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while (25 words, 146 characters)
• occurred while another identity was in control the different identities referred to as alters may exhibit differences in speech mannerisms attitudes thoughts and gender orientation these symptoms are not accounted (20 words, 144 characters)

Could you check this out and make sure no copy/paste or close paraphrasing is there? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph needs work, but it should eliminate the problem above:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder in the ICD-10 , is a psychiatric diagnosis where at least two personality states alter control. These states routinely control behavior, and are often limited to state dependent memory. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, seizures or other medical conditions, nor are they motivated by malingering or factitious disorder. Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 19:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's my simplified, paraphrased, layman's version.:

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder, is a mental disorder in which a person's behavior is controlled by two or more alternating, distinct identities (or "personality states"), with one identity in control at any given time. Typically, the affected person cannot remember some of the events that transpired while under the control of a different identity. An identity change can manifest in various ways, including changes in attitude and thoughts, speech, physical mannerisms, and gender orientation. DID symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, fantasy behavior, help-seeking behavior (factitious disorder), seizures or other medical conditions, or potential financial or forensic gain (malingering). Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders.

Comments? Lambtron (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Typically, the affected person cannot remember some of the events that transpired while under the control of a different identity."

I suggest instead: Often, the main personality state cannot remember events that transpired while under the control of another personality state.

Why - All personality states together make up the person's personality. Some personality states (in those with DID) have coconsciousnesses (it's as if one state is out and the other is watching - which can also occur in DDNOS). To have DID, according the the DSM, there must be at least one personality state that takes over resulting in total memory loss for the part that is normally in executive control (host). Excellent job! I am so glad you are here! This is really a great way to make sure everyone understands this stuff! :) Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Forgive me for repeating myself, but discussing DID in terms of "personality states" is problematic for me. I have no idea what a personality state is and frankly, it seems that no one can say with authority what it is. I googled it and immediately found two different definitions, but I couldn't find a reliable source for either one. It's unhelpful to define DID in terms of undefined jargon, even if that jargon is used by reliable sources. I do have a sense of what "identity" means, though, and I'm guessing that trait is common to other laypersons. I realize you are striving for technical accuracy, but why not make the intro comprehensible to laypersons and reserve extensive use of "personality states" (and its definitions) and other clinical jargon for in-depth, later paragraphs? Lambtron (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "personality states" is the term used by the American Medical Association (AMA) that defines what DID is. The fact that you can't find a reliable source (outside the AMA) means that you will have to engage in original research if you want to come up with other wording. And original research is not allowed on WP. Anything you write for this article must be verifiable and follow reliable sources for medical articles.

Also, please follow WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Therefore, it works better if the article is written before too much energy is put into writing the lead. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Lambtron: Identity is okay, but still confusing once people grasp of what DID is. The DSM does use the term identity as well as personality state, but the problem is that lay people can confuse what it actually means. I think it would be good to define which ever term is chosen. I vote for personality state because that is what it is - simply the parts or states that make up the personality.

Such as: Those with DID have traumatized and dissociated parts which are commonly called (alters/ identities/personality states). The only disorder with alters is DID. Each alter is a fragment of self - or often thought of as split from the self. No part is a complete self, even though each part might feel as if it is. All (alters, personality states, identities) exist to protect the whole system - the person and their sense of their-self, howsoever fragmented. This is a key axiom of how personality systems work.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to change the lead to capitalize Dissociative Identity Disorder. We are bound by the manual of style, not the APA's style, unless there is a direct quote.

Personality states is, as far as I've seen, both undefined and not universally used. I don't know what alternative exists, so most sources stick with mealy-mouthed pornography-type definitions ("I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it") which are imprecise. My preferences would be to simply use "personalities" or "identities" actually, unless we go with a direct quote. I don't think "personality states" adds anything to the page; it's not generally accepted, it's not defined, and I don't think it helps any laypeople understand the page any better than just "personality" or identity. The lead isn't the place to hash this out, and since the whole concept is undefined and vague, I don't know if we lose much by sticking with a more casual term or terms.

As Mathew points out, we need to be careful of copyright violations unless there is direct attribution - and if we're going that route, I still think the DSM is the book to quote. Mathew, do you mean the AMA, or the APA (who authors the DSM)?

Regarding the statement "Diagnosis can be difficult as DID sometimes coexists with other mental disorders", this seems to muddy comorbidity (which coexists with DID) and misdiagnosis or differential diagnosis. When there is comorbidity, it is important to separately identify which diagnoses coexist (for instance, DID often coexists with anxiety disorders). However, schizophrenia is not often comorbid with DID, but careful differential diagnosis must occur to distinguish their superficially common symptoms (such as hearing voices) from distinct underlying pathology. In addition, borderline personality disorder has been proposed as being part of the continuum or substitution for DID (though I don't think this needs to be in the lead).

I don't know if the lead is the place to shoehorn in interidentity amnesia. Hard to do well, and perhaps not necessary.

The statement "Those with DID have traumatized and dissociated parts" shouldn't be in the lead since it assumes trauma and dissociation far too much given the controversy. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

you're right WLU. It's the American Psychiatric Association (APA). They made up the definition and its the recognized definition for insurance companies, mental health practitioners, drug companies etc. There is no other generally recognized definition. This article is about the DSM diagnosis. The MOS for medicine-related articles contains a list of suggested section headings, as WLU indicates above.

For those who don't want to follow the WP rules for writing medical articles, why not write another article defining what you think this condition should be called, titled as such, and put in it what you think should go in it. This article has 77 mostly journal review articles as reliable sources for medical articles specifies that support the statements made in the article. (Books are allowed if they are peer reviewed and not just one "expert" pushing his or her views, unless the article context makes clear that the view put forth is per that author.) The lead should summarize the article, and not go off in its own direction. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WLU: Sir, this is why we need to settle the argument of if the SGM should be in more than a controversy paragraph, rather than intertwined. This is what confuses the lay people - writing this paper like it is a war when it is not. Howell E. (2011). Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415994969.There is an expert consensus that we need to report, rather than fringe ideas. If what we want to present is inaccuracies and fringe ideas, then the DID page is already done - the paper is loaded with fringe opinions. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WLU: There is no such thing as personalities. All people, DID or not have many parts that make up their one personality. Talk about confusing the lay person. "Personalties" - as in ability to have more than one is a pop culture idea or really old information. Howell E. (2011). Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415994969.Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarity for the Lede

Here is a paragraph that should agree with everyone's arguments.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder in the ICD-10, is a psychiatric diagnosis in which at least two personality states (fragments of the personality) switch back and forth with state dependent memory (amnesia between the two personality states) resulting in each part having their own memories. Everyone has personality states which together form the personality, but those with DID have "dissociated" personality states which, due to the amnesic boundary and thus lack of communication with other personality states, can feel they are a sole identity rather than a group of personality states working together which is the case in the normal brain. Due to lack of training by some therapists a diagnosis can be difficult as DID does often coexists with other mental disorders - PTSD in particular. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 14:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ISSTD guidelines

The ISSTD guidelines contain the following warning at the beginning:

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, amusing - probably to avoid the counter-suits by parents against therapists and former patients suing former therapists. Although it's weird to see them essentially say "don't use this for real therapy". I'm still inclined to say it is a reliable source, perhaps phrased in terms of "The ISSTD says..." It sure would be nice to see a document assessing the ISSTD as a scientific and/or advocacy organization. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The ISSTD has some very specific things to say about how to do therapy - in their Guidelines document, which is obviously downloadable from the site. "Don't use this for therapy"? They are saying quite the opposite. They tell us how to use the research-based stuff on their site and in the literature. WLU, you have it completely wrong. Tanya~talk page 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

well, obviously the more specific their recommendations are, the more they have to warn people that their recommendations may be out of date or inaccurate, etc. Most review articles don't make recommendations but objectively review the research, so no warning needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why do we keep talking on this talk page when all 3 of us have agreed we need to wait and bringing up new issues when the important issues above have not been addressed is a huge problem. Tanya~talk page 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the work of new editors to the page

Mathew - please state why you are reverting the edits of a new editor that has joined us. You said you stepped down from working on this page, and now a new editor wants to work you are here doing what WLU has always done - reverting any work she tries to do. I have not looked in detail at what you are reverting, but on the talk page she was making sense. Please explain why you are doing this. Tanya (t) 15:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason Casliber gave on the same user's talk page.:

"DancingPhilosopher, the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality. Any questions, just ask. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)"

That is the reason Tylas. Do you think Casliber is wrong? If so, please explain to Casliber that he is wrong, as I follow Casliber's advice as he is an expert. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should explain to this new editor to the DID page what you are doing before just going in and revert her edits. I have said nothing about Casliber. I try not to page stalk and had not looked at her page and had not a clue in the world what you are doing or talking about. You are just assuming I have. You need to communicate before acting - please. Tanya (t) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I did. I posted on his talk page:

"Please don't make major changes in this very controversial article without discussing on the talk page first. The article is in peer review so you can also enter comments there also.

"Also, you added content to the lead that wasn't discussed in the body of the article and wasn't sourced per reliable sources for medical articles. To quote Casliber from his post to you above about your additions to the Dissociative identity disorder article: "the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality."

• His reply was:

"Your objection is a straw man

Your objection to the edits done by me to the article on DID simply does not apply. Why? Because my edits were limited, firstly, to the meta-medical, e.g. methodological issues solely, and, secondly, to the fact that those issues are ignored because of the role of the legal etc uses, as acknowledged also in DSM article (even before I made edits to the latter, too)... To conclude - my edits were not about medical content at all.

The above meta-medical fact (that there are serious unresolved methodological issues) is NOT, and I repeat NOT, controversial. On the contrary, the meta-medical debate is completely independent from the medical debate.

Summa summarum: your objection is a straw man."

• Do you agree with him, Tylas? And do you agree with his addition to the first paragraph of the lead:

There is a significant scientific debate about the relative validity of a "categorical" versus a "dimensional" system of classification, as well as significant controversy about the role of the professional, legal, and social uses to which they are put.

• Do you agree that this addition improves the first paragraph of the lead? If so, perhaps you can provide sources and add an explanation to the body of the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is his? Did Casliper actually post on her talk page or is it you trying to use his name. This is all a mess of confusion. Please edit your text so it makes sense. I am lost here. Also, I am not saying I agree or disagree. The entire article is a political mess instead of a medical page about DID. Please don't try and muddle the issues with trying to nail me down to a minor point when there are massive problems with this article and the first thing to confront before again burying the issue is what the expert consensus for DID is. The real world already has decided, but once WP editors can catch up with that, then we can move forward with improving the article. Tanya (t) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know who this person is that you're defending. If you actually read what I wrote (and click on the diff provided, you'll see that Casliber did indeed post on his talk page, quoted below in case you don't click diffs:

DancingPhilosopher, the standard way to add content to medical articles is to build up a section in the body of the text before adding to the lead. I'd also advise ensuring that there are secondary sources (i.e. Review Articles) supporting the material. Medical articles are generally held more strictly to sourcing guidelines due to the enormous amount of primary source material of widely varying quality. Any questions, just ask. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But of course you are free to defend DancingPhilosoper's addition to the page, even if Casliber disagrees with you both. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are totally changing my words. I have not even looks at her additions to the page and never said I have. I said what you posted here is a mess and I can't tell who is saying what. Again, I am not saying she is right or wrong. You again are trying to diffuse the real issue which is that the DID page is a disaster and it does not explain the mainstream expert consensus of DID. Tanya (t) 16:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, you said: "Mathew - please state why you are reverting the edits of a new editor that has joined us." ok, I tried to explain. You didn't understand, so I explained more. I'm not going to explain any more why I thought his edits were inappropriate and why I reverted them.

You said: "I think you should explain to this new editor to the DID page what you are doing before just going in and revert her edits." ok, I showed you that I did explain and that Casliber did also. End of story. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathew - You say "his reply" but are talking about 2 different people. I think that is "her reply" as in DancingPhilosopers. I was asking you to make it clear who is saying what in your copy and pasting from DancingPhilosphers page, because it is not clear. She is a she. Enough. Never mind. I will go to her page and figure it out. Tanya (t) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question was unsourced, which means it can be removed by anybody. In addition, it was substantially a criticism of the DSM and its ratings or measurement scale (or possibly measurement scales in general) and wasn't directly related to DID, the actual topic of the page itself. If there is a source that links criticisms of the scales used by the DSM to DID and why that's relevant, that level of detail can go in the body; unless there is a massive and apparent controversy about how the DSM's categorical rating system affects DID and DID diagnoses, it doesn't belong in the lead as it's far, far, far too specific.

Assume good faith means we assume that the editor in question isn't editing to harm wikipedia; that is, they are not vandalizing. It doesn't mean we need to put up with bad edits that don't comply with policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:OR. This isn't worth discussing really, the edit didn't add anything of merit to the page and it was a fairly obvious coatrack of unrelated issues. Until, at minimum, a source can be found to veirfy this "meta-methodological issue" applying to DID, it shouldn't be replaced. And even then, I will be very intrigued to see a rational for why anyone would defend that edit. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rise and Shine! It's peer review time!

Our guy "Cryptic C62, also known as Ryan Malloy" is back and at work. Just a heads up to everyone that is watching. Let's get this done! I am excited to work on it! :) Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Article - Diagnosis - 2nd paragraph There were changes to this paragraph, some suggested by Ryan, others by me as I read it. Since this paragraph is being looked at, let's look at it closer.

1st sentence

"The diagnosis has been criticized as proponents of the iatrogenic or sociocognitive hypothesis believe it as a culture-bound and often iatrogenic condition which they think is in decline."

References used to verify this first sentence:

Piper and Merkey (2004) This is too old to use for this article, as we have agreed in the past to use information that is current - 5 years old or less as suggested by Doc James. Piper and Mersky - part II of same article listed above. (2004) Again, this is too old

Boysen (2011) Boysen does not say this in his abstract or conclusion, and really the study has nothing to do with the statement made above.

Boysen looked at published studies in the 1980's and 1990's. Boysen's exact words: "Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder."

Boysen's actual conclusion: "Despite continuing research on the related concepts of trauma and dissociation, childhood DID itself appears to be an extremely rare phenomenon that few researchers have studied in depth. Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Piper and Merskey's papers could be seen as classic articles presenting criticisms of DID that have not been refuted yet. I would suggest bringing it up at the RSN or WT:MED

Boysen's summary of the DID debate is a partial verification of this statement, and his literature review isn't limited to just children so it applies to DID overall. Most of the article is in fact a summary of the knowledge to date in order to see which model is best supported, and neither wins. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Piper and Merkey then should be used only in the history section of this article. If something was still relevant in science today, it would still be addressed. If it is no longer, then the use of the article would be historic. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, though the fact that they are still cited when the topic comes up suggests they still have something. As Boysen says, many of the core issues haven't been addressed. I think both papers should continue to be used, but newer research and publications seem to be making similar points. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you do Sir. Piper and Merskey are 2 of the people out there that support your fringe/minority POV. I would expect you to want to keep anything from them you can get hold of. As I have said before, quoting an introduction to a paper is simply misleading and it keeps being used to show support for an idea where the paper in fact is totally against that idea. We all need to quote a summary or conclusion - not cherry picking one small section from an introduction. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd Sentence in this paragraph

Other researchers disagree and argue that the condition is real and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by reliable and convergent evidence.

Cardena E; Gleaves DH (2007). "Dissociative Disorders". In Hersen M; Turner SM; Beidel DC. Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis. The reference has us read the entire chapter 13 about dissociative disorders in general. Cardna and Gleaves (2007) Textbook. 5 years old. Acceptable. pg 473 - 482 are online - at least using the link on the WP page. The reference given is pages 473 to 503, which is far too broad.

What Cardena and Gleaves actually say is fascinating, but it is not about DID at least the part we can read online. It is about dissociative disorders in general. I would love to read the rest of the book - which probably goes into DID rather thoroughly, but it would certainly be beyond page 482. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the updated version of the book chapter is not written by Cardena; when I have the time I'd like to replace, where appropriate, Cardena with Lynn. The citation is to an entire chapter, which is akin to citing an entire peer reviewed article. I've replaced and reworded the sentence with a hopefully more readable summary. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WLU's rewrite on sentence 2: "Other researchers disagree and argue that the existence of the condition and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by multiple lines of reliable evidence, with diagnostic criteria allowing it to be clearly discriminated from conditions it is often mistaken for (schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and seizure disorder)."

I found the part of the text that looked familiar. It's from the ISSTD guidelines - the top of page 124. "A number of lines of evidence support the trauma model for DID over the SCM." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What page in reference did you find this Sir? This is confusing still and I would like to see the context that this refers since the reason that DID can be mistaken for schizophrenia, borderline and seizure disorders is therapist/doctor error - at least from the literature that I have read and can cite The tools and training exist so that DID is not hard to Dx. This is what should be reported here rather than controversy. I would think that the 2011 ISSTD Treatment guidelines authored by many experts in the field of DID - would in fact be the best reference to use here or another citation that pertains to current treatment of DID in the year 2012. (p.123) pdf file or perhaps in this case since the ISSTD reference will be used many other places in the article we should use Dell and O'Neil's giant book "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders:: DSM-V and Beyond" that was explicitly written for exactly that purpose - to be the best reference out there on this topic.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. What's confusing about it? I don't object to the ISSTD's guidelines being cited here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Other researchers disagree" - It's actually the (p.123) majority of experts and the expert consensus that argue that there are 3 models that should be used, and none are the SCM.

"and argue that the existence of the condition and its inclusion in the DSM is supported by multiple lines of reliable evidence," "multiple lines - is that not that taken directly out of the ISSTD guidelines. I have read it there. I will find the page. If used it needs to copy less and paraphrase better. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The last line is not horrible, but it's still confusing and misleading. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the ISSTD guidelines that will clarify what I mean about the last sentence. * "Accurate clinical diagnosis affords early and appropriate treatment for the dissociative disorders. The difficulties in diagnosing DID result primarily from lack of education among clinicians about dissociation, dissociative disorders, and the effects of psychological trauma, as well as from clinician bias. This leads to limited clinical suspicion about dissociative disorders and misconceptions about their clinical presentation." (p.117) pdf file

Also: * "Moreover, because most clinicians receive little or no training in dissociation and DID, they have difficulty recognizing the signs and symptoms of DID even when they occur spontaneously." (p.118) pdf file

I don't see where on page 123 it says the majority of experts. Feel free to supplement or replace Cardena with the ISSTD guidelines. The argument that DID diagnoses are clusted due to (lack of) training and (in)experience should be noted. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cardena and Gleaves reference is the one that Doc James gave us to work, but the link on the WP DID page, reference does not go to the section of the book on DID, as I said it just goes to the section on DD and then quits. I will see if I can find the original link that Doc James gave. This is an excellent references. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Doc James would approve of using the Lynn 2012 reference, since it's the updated version of Cardena & Gleaves. As for the rest of this, we both know each others' questions and answers, so there's no point in continuing to repeat myself. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

there is no actual research for the SCM (p.124)

It's going to be hard to say you have an expert consensus when the fact is that ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124) pdf file There are 2 groups. One that believes in the minority/fringe POV I just listed that has no research to back it up and the 3 models presented by the ISSTD that are mainstream - as you can see at Merck. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the words "According to the ISSTD" in your statement, and putting it in illustrates the flaw.

You can keep repeating the fact that you believe the SCM is the minority or fringe position, and I will keep repeating that this is your opinion and not one backed by anything remotely reliable. You are mistaking sources you agree with, with sources that are reliable. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Then by all means - present your research. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

3rd and last sentence in this paragraph

"That a large proportion of cases are diagnosed by specific clinicians suggests to some that either those clinicians are indeed responsible for the iatrogenic creation of alters or there is a high rate of false positives due to subjective diagnostic criteria, though proponents of the traumagenic hypothesis believe there are valid and objective diagnostic criteria to identify individuals with DID."

Boysen, GA (2011). "The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research". The same reference we discussed above. What does this reference have to do with anything in the last sentence of this paragraph?

Again, remember Boysen was looking at literature on children diagnosed with DID in the 80's and 90's. Boysen's conclusion in that study: "Despite continuing research on the related concepts of trauma and dissociation, childhood DID itself appears to be an extremely rare phenomenon that few researchers have studied in depth. Nearly all of the research that does exist on childhood DID is from the 1980s and 1990s and does not resolve the ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder." Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This does need a better reference, Boysen's article on children is speaking specifically about children regarding these points (which should probably be replaced elsewhere). Lynn 2012 verifies a modified version of this point, so I've replaced the citation. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The link takes me to a page that does not exist - at least online and at that link. If Lynn was a good reference, then we still need at least one more as suggested by our peer reviewer. In this case I would say we still need 2 references.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fringe/Minority With all the researchers out there that are considered to be experts in this field, why would we use references about mainstream DID from one of the few fringe SCM researchers - Lynn? Lynn should not be used unless citing a controversial line. Lilienfeld also comes to mind since he and Lynn are two of the biggest professional conservatives in all of psychology. These people are classic fringe/minority. They are not clinical psychologists. They are universally critical of much of clinical psych. They howled about EMDR for years. No one pays them any attention, for the most part, 'cause they themselves clearly cherry pick their references.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just re-read the page, it's there - pages 516-7. As a university-level textbook, it's pretty solid.

I don't think Lynn (and his six co-authors of the chapter) is a "fringe" researcher. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to that please. Sir, it does not matter what you think. It matters what the mainstream consensus of those who study DID think. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 18:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've never documented that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus, despite repeated requests to do so. So no. A university level textbook published by a mainstream scholarly publisher can be assumed more neutral than a document published by a partisan agency that explicitly adopts one side of a scholarly disagreement. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again there are many University level text books to choose from, there is only one organization that is the sole professional association in psychology for those who treat and research dissociative disorders. Show me where in this text book it says that the 2 views are equal. That is not going to be found anywhere, simply because it is not true, but do show me please. Support your statement. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to mainstream consensus again

I have given argument after argument. I have showed that the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus and this is simply what is accepted in the field of DID. For this argument peer reviewer: please see my talk page where it took place. WLU, please show me anything that says the ISSTD is not the mainstream consensus or any other group that is considered to be. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat the last questions that remain unanswered on my talk page:Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims about the ISSTD being mainstream have been addressed multiple times, but you refuse to acknowledge this. Repeating it further doesn't make your point any more convincing, but it does make it tendentious. You haven't convinced anybody so far. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your tactic to argue that the SCM is a alternative to the consensus and therefore deserves equivalent status in the article does not reflect the view in any edition of the DSM, nor in any edition of the Merck Manual, nor in any major medical textbook. The SCM people have no data to support their position. That doesn't make them important; it makes them part of the tendentious fringe in psychiatry. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Show me the evidence that the SCM is accepted by mainstream expert consensus

Reply - Show me what evidence you have that the the SCM is accepted by the mainstream consensus of experts please. Your argument does not appear rational to me. Show me your evidence. I do not believe there is any, and what happens in that case historically, is that the minority/fringe POV falters and fades with no actual demonstrable truth or research to back it up. The expert consensus, on the other hand, is simply able to do more, and thus the culture as a whole listens to them. That is how these battles are won. I have complete faith in that - even on WP.

Reply - Writing for the enemy - What I say keeps getting lost in all the banter - I do not see the SCM as the enemy. It simply has no research to support the opinions presented. I do not care how DID is caused. I only care that the correct information is presented. I have never argued against having a paragraph in the DID article about the minority POV's concerning DID, what I argue is having minority/fringe POV's presented as equal to the mainstream expert consensus. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Next - the problem with this is that there are all kinds of University level text books that say the same thing. I maintain that using anything by a fringe/minority person is an overall problem. Doc James suggested a textbook we can use if we are going to quote textbooks. Also, could you find a working url to this text so that I can read it please. The url Doc James gave for a University level text works great. I will dig it up.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show me anything that indicates the ISSTD is the mainstream consensus. The large number of sourcse that seriously discuss the SCM argues against it being an unsupported fringe position. To edit fruitfully you may have to realize the ISSTD may not be considered the mainstream organization you think it is, and may not represent what all or most scholars think about DID. For that matter, the fact that the ISSTD's own documents argue DID is missed by most clinicians due to skepticism and lack of training suggests it is not the mainstream position. If it was, these DID cases wouldn't be missed - they'd be recognized. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The average Joe does not understand the same things that the experts in any field do. It takes time to educate the masses, but in the meantime, reporting fringe stuff just adds to the problem. WP's job is to report the mainstream expert consensus. Not to treat a fringe/minority as if it is equal. Again I have no problem with there being a paragraph in the article on the fringe/minority POV's. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an old argument already covered on my talk page and you are avoiding my question: Show me what evidence you have that the the SCM is accepted by the mainstream consensus of experts please. Answer it directly please. For you to edit fruitfully you may have to realize that the SCM is a fringe/minority POV. There is the minority that supports the SCM and the rest of the people that study DID may or may not be in the ISSTD, I have no idea, but they do support the findings of the ISSTD. Again see Merck for what is considered in 2012 as the mainstream thoughts on DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding your question, I'm indicating that we are both in the same position - neither one of us can demonstrate unequivocally that one position is mainstream and the other is not. I can't prove that one position is mainstream, and neither can you.

You are citing the 2008 Merck manual to support the 2012 mainstream thought. Allow me to instead point to a 2012 source that is far more detailed, nuanced and authoritative.

Repeating "minority" doesn't make a position an actual minority. I get it, you think the SCM is the majority opinion. I disagree. We both have reliable sources that describe both positions, so let's move on rather than you repeating a personal belief as if it were an unambiguous fact. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will let our peer reviewer decided, not you. It is you Sir who is being tendentious in refusing to accept the obvious and who wants to present the WP DID article as if DID is a battle when it is not and who has ran off anyone in the past that has disagreed with your extreme POV. The ISSTD is the sole organization of its type in the field. It has no competition. If there is an alternative to the ISSTD, where is it? I keep asking the question and you keep dodging it. If there are not enough people to form a group, then you have simply a few eccentrics, versus the main body of organized professionals. The ISSTD's Guideline statement expresses the consensus of the ISSTD - the sole professional association in psychology for those who treat and research dissociative disorders. If you wish to assert that a handful of detractors, publishing in non-clinical journals, are equal in stature to this professional association, then please cite a source to back it up, or come forward with a competing consensus statement. An unbiased reader, seeing the statement from this major professional association can, and will, draw the obvious conclusion. Also, WLU - you still have not given me or, anyone here reading this a working link, to this book you are talking about. If it is the one I am thinking of, it in no way treats SCM and trauma theory the same, even though Lynn is one of the authors. As long as words are not cherry picked from it, then it should be a good reference, however I would like to see it first.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The same things happens with all difficult diseases. Specialist professionals make most of the specialist diagnoses, in good part because non-specialists refer to them (and client/patients self-refer), knowing that if the diagnosis is to be made the specialist will do it right. All health care works this way. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 00:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WLU: I am drawing from mainstream consensus documents. As for the question of weight to be given to the SCM, the APA (in the DSM) and the ISSTD give at the most passing mention to the SCM. The ISSTD document explicitly states that there is no empirical research for the SCM. pdf file (p.124)

Reply to WLU - The consensus model comes from the American Psychiatric Association (who develops and publishes the DSM, of course), and the research specialists in the field of dissociative disorders. Where else would you get it? There are 3 MODELS that are considered by the APA and all 3 models should be presented on the WP DID page. pdf file (p.122-123)

Reply to WLU - The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is no actual research for the SCM. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID report that there is no actual research for the SCM POV. With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124)Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 23:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For this to be a good article

I think Mathew's contributions have been outstanding to this article - the man is highly intelligent and he has made this mess of an article, exceptional in the areas where he has contributed. If the so called controversy interjected throughout by WLU was reduced to one paragraph, the article would be outstanding. I do understand that in saying this that Mathew still leans toward the SCM, but experts who do concentrate on DID do not.

I also need to add that much of the information and citations for the controversy were cherry picked by WLU. They are not a product of mainstream information but are certain authors, as well as words and sentences that were used out of context. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

external link to article on Simple Misplaced Pages

It's not right to write an article on Simple Misplaced Pages, making almost 200 edits there in the last few days see User statistics for that article, then reference it in External links on this article. So I've removed the link. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, why is it not right? Nobody owns an article, and this article will be changed by other editors like any other article. I think the question of who wrote an article should not be a criterion for including it in the External links list, the only relevant question is if the article's content makes it relevant for this list. Lova Falk talk 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Lova Falk, except that there is actually a link to the Simple English Misplaced Pages article in the side bar (under languages) so we don't need another one in external links.

To be really pedantic, the link in the side bar is generated by wikitext in the "external links" section!

Yaris678 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I find that a valid argument for not including the link in the list! Lova Falk talk 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend, Simple is a valid interwiki link, please don't remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Mathew - why do you take this so personal? Why are you now on simple WP harassing me? Can't you just help me instead of attacking like this please. I know you want me gone, but I am not going. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that removing the link from interwikis is kinda pointless, as it would likely be re-added by a bot within a day or two. If there are issues with the Simple version, metapedianism is always encouraged. If there are interpersonal issues at play, dispute resolution is thataway. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The last person that tried that here was banned. I don't trust the process. I am not an engrained and long term editor. I feel that I would loose not matter if I am right or wrong. There is nothing personal between myself and Mathew and WLU - at least that I know of. Mathew and WLU simply believe in a minority idea called sociocognitive (this means that DID is caused from watching TV, reading books and influence from a therapist - it does not support that DID is caused from childhood abuse as the experts in DID believe) and since they believe in it they feel the article should support it equally with what the experts in DID believe. The job of WP is report the consensus of experts, not the POV of editors. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with the version here. Mathew did not care less about that other version until I started to work on it a few days ago. Looking at the stats - until that time it was a simple and rather neglected article. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Tylas, your 1000 edits of POV was removed from the Misplaced Pages article. You have been threatened with a block twice, the last time was your final warning. So you moved your POV to Simple Misplaced Pages, so now it's ok, according to Nikkimaria. Shows what a farce[REDACTED] is. All the fuss about reliable sources is just a show, evidently, if Misplaced Pages supports linking to POV articles on Simple Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't care if the Misplaced Pages article weren't linked to the POV at Simple. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew - WLU had a version he wanted in his sandbox and he simply replaced what I was in the process of working on with his version. I had mine out in the open and worked on it daily and welcomed others to help. Oh you are twisting words. Two women have politely reminded me that I cannot talk about some groups of people on here and I won't. (please, see my talk page for this information) That is not a problem at all. Don't try and get me to say the word - please. Not nice! I have not "moved" my POV anywhere. I was researching for another project I am working on and found that article and started to work on it. Period! I am not expressing my POV. I am trying to get WP to report the expert consensus of those that study DID like the encyclopedia is suppose to. Instead I run up again WLU who still claims things that are only believed in the pop culture ] and then you show up and support him. I have no idea what that is about and don't want to know. The experts in DID are not a POV minority group! Oh my! You can't rattle me. Hound me. Attack me all you want. I am not going. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Two women threatened you with a block because you were calling editors paedophiles and worse. The last time your comments to a Signpost talk page were oversighted, removed completely from Misplaced Pages and you were given a final warning. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let us remind everyone that the stats here do not show the reality. The reality is that just about any edit that WLU does not agree with is reverted by him. I still don't know the deal with Mathew, but WLU is crystal clear. As of right now, I have 2 edits on the entire DID page. One is the Janet image, the other is the text under the image on top that Doc James put there. The worlds top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive POV that Mathew and WLU want to put as equal to the traumagenic Models. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I don't care if the link to simple is there or not. I just thought it was the right thing to do. Whatever is decided on this, does not matter to me at all. I have no opinion on it. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Man, this is a lotta fuss about an interwiki. Mathew, we link to interwiki versions of our articles no matter what the state of the article may be in other wikis, just as other wikis link to our articles whether they're up to standards or not. Interwikis aren't sources, nor does the presence of an interwiki link give any sort of "approval" to it. To give you an analogy, we quite often provide wikilinks to articles of our own that, quite frankly, suck. The answer to both problems is not to remove the links, but to fix whatever problems exist to the best of our abilities. (And honestly, very few people click interwikis anyway). The rest of the back-and-forth above does not belong on this page, period, and I'm very tempted to just remove all of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

yep! I for one did not know an interwiki existed! Heck I did not know simple existed until a few days ago. That is why I wanted to link to it. Removing all that banter does not bother me at all! I sure would like to be able to edit without every edit here being reverted though. I am not stupid. I actually know quite a bit about DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the proper way to address this is to edit the SEW article, which is inappropriately biased. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh that means run me off there and make sure the article shows a mintory/fringe POV that says that watching TV, reading a book and therapist influences actually causes DID. You two are showing the perfect example of how to run even the most stubborn of editors off WP. Very sad. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that means I at least will have to clean up another article you have POV-pushed on, by citing numerous reliable sources that indicate the SCM is not, as you claim on SEW, "wrong". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone stop sort this sort of fringe/minority POV pushing or is this just the destiny of WP? Here is the consensus of the actual experts on DID. pdf file It is online for free and summarized for you on page 124. About the minority/fringe POV that Mathew and WLU want presented equal to the traumagenic models (there are 3 of them) is summarized by the the expert consensus as: ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124). Pages 123 and 124 of this document summarize this entire debate. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 23:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the SEW page. I have no issue with linking to it now. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More accurately, I have no issue linking to this version of SEW. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WLU, as you know your total rewrite of the DID simple version goes back to trying to confuse people and to push your POV as being equal to the of the experts that study DID. The idea is to explain to people what DID is. Not run them around in circles. The main idea however is to express the consensus of the experts who work with and study DID, not to report the skeptics (that are skeptical of much of psychology) minority POV as if it is equal. A paragraph explaining the controversy would work perfect for DID.Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 03:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use mainstream information that is 5 years old or newer - do not cherry pick You are using information cherry picked from the intro to articles again. Also, again with the pop culture and the only agreement on this site we have all made is to use citations 5 years old or less and you are going back throwing in an old version probably from your sandbox that has this old thing in it: ↑ Piper, A.; Merskey, H. (2004). "The persistence of folly: Critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part II. The defence and decline of multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder" (pdf). Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 49 (10): 678–683. PMID 15560314. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Mid-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages