Talk:False memory syndrome

talk page archived

The talk page was getting long, so threads dated prior to 2008 have been archived to /Archive 1. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

tags added on neutrality and balance

I have added these tags, because IMO, it appears that most of the article presents the point of view of the FMSF and affiliated orgs. My hope is that additional data can be added to the article to balance these views. Abuse truth (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the addition of the tags. The article is currently far from unbiased. It needs a major rewrite and solid references to bring it to WP:NPOV. It will take time but it can be done. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is terrifically POV, and rife with weasel words. It needs serious attention, ideally the attention of someone well-informed and reasonably impartial about false memory/recovered memory. Failing that, an editor who agrees with the work of Loftus et al. The numerous arguments to authority, which are invariably laden with weasel words ("other psychologists," "mainstream psychology," and "most psychologists"), are poor substitutes for factual discussions of this important and very controversial issue in psychology. To compound the problem, this article seems to subtly label psychologists who believe in FMS as child abuse apologists. --Kajerm (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

paragraph in the history section

This paragraph : The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance has speculated that during the 1980s and 1990s, thousands or tens of thousands of therapists attempted to recover memories of early childhood abuse from their clients. The techniques, practices and exercises used in these attempts are often referred to as Recovered Memory Therapy and sometimes resulted in allegations of abuse being made by individuals against family members. Many of these individuals severed all connection with their parents, hundreds of whom were convicted of these crimes and imprisoned. Many of the people convicted on such charges have since been freed, in part due to the efforts of the FMSF and a wider, skeptical reappraisal of RMT and the veracity of individuals' recovered memories. Recovered memory therapy (RMT) on ReligiousTolerance.org

and the section in general appears to be poorly sourced. The above paragraph comes from a self-admittedly POV source, that uses very few references to back up the numbers stated in their article. Many of the statements they make do not appear to be backed up research.

Quote from their webpage on RMT: "Our normal policy is to explain both or all viewpoints that people hold on each issue. However, the extreme harm caused by RMT has now been well documented. The unreliability of RMT has been firmly established. Thus, this series of essays will mainly reflect the beliefs of a near-consensus of therapists in this series of essays: that RMT is a dangerous and irresponsible form of therapy."

Statements like "near-consensus" and "firmly established" appear to be statements of opinion not backed by data or research. I didn't want to delete the paragraph or section without a discussion first. Perhaps there is a way to save the section by bringing in reliable sources to bring in a more balanced perspective.Abuse truth (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the history section in an attempt to balance the section with an RS peer reviewed journal article and abstract quote. This originally came from the wiki fmsf page. I have wikified it by using cite journal, adding the eric url and adding a balancing sentence at the end of the quote.Abuse truth (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

oops, should have read page better Ralphmcd (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...lack of range, maybe?

Yeah. So. False memory syndrome doesn't apply solely to memories of sexual abuse, it applies to...hmm, oh, I know - FALSE MEMORIES. Any sort of false memory can be included under FMS, but this article implies that the realm of FMS stops after sexual abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about "False Memories", it's about "False Memory Syndrome", and that term specifically as defined by the people who coined it applies specifically to memories of sexual abuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the lengths that Loftus and other researchers have gone to in order to develop models of false memory formation in order to support the FMS hypothesis, FMS really should be briefly tied to the broader phenomenon of false memories. Failing to mention it at all just makes this article look even more like a blithe attempt to discredit FMS. --Kajerm (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

agree with recent line restoration

I agree with the 4/1 restoration of the sentence in the opening section. "Not irrelevant, as it implies that he considers them biased." ResearchEditor (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryptomnesia / research

From all I've heard about FMS, it appears to me to be related to, if not the same as, cryptomnesia, which renowned skeptic Arthur C. Clarke described in one essay as "the incredibly detailed and creative recall of memories under hypnosis" [italics in original]. He was making the point that hypnosis subjects aren't compelled by their state of mind to tell the truth; on the contrary, the tendency of people to say what they believe their listener wants to hear, may actually be boosted by hypnosis.

Also, ISTR reading some years ago about some psychologists (in response to claims that FMS is just a term invented as a cover-up for child abuse) doing an experiment which (they claimed) proved once and for all that there is such a thing as FMS; they subjected volunteers to hypnotherapy sessions, during which they persuaded the subjects that in their childhood they had visited Disneyland and met Bugs Bunny there. A "significant number" of the subjects afterwards "remembered" the encounter; despite the fact that there is no possibility of it actually having taken place, as Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brothers character, not Disney.

Perhaps, if good citations can be found for either or both of these, they can be folded into the article. -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's important to use clear boundaries. "False Memory Syndrome" is a hypothesis put forth by a few people in the specific context of recovered memories of abuse. It's not a general theory of "false memories". "Cryptomnesia" is not about memories of abuse or of any events in a person's life, it's about recalling information without realizing that the information came from somewhere else, resulting in unconscious plagiarism.

Regarding the Bugs Bunny story, the controversial study was reported in the press but not peer-reviewed, and did not involve memories of abuse or mention the term "false memory syndrome" - so it's not related to this article. Here's an article that provides some perspective on the Bugs Bunny paper: Freyd, J.J. (2003). "Commentary: Response to 17 February 2003 Media Reports on Loftus' Bugs Bunny Study".

With both of the above items, it's unlikely there are reliable sources connecting them to FMS - if you find some, that would be of interest, otherwise they can't be used in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

revisiting the religioustolerance.org reference and statement

After a lot of deliberation, I removed the religioustolerance.org reference and statement, that has been previously discussed several times already.

I read through their material to check the accuracy of the statement and I found that even if the source were reliable, the paragraph would need to be rewritten to correctly relate the information in the source. But rewriting the paraphrase doesn't appear to be appropriate anyway since the reliability of the source has been questioned, and has not been established. It's one person's interpretation of the topic; the author is not a researcher or otherwise recognized authority; and, he states his bias on the topic and is writing to prove his point - not to present the information in a neutral and balanced way. If he were a notable commentator, it might be useful to present his personal views, but in addition to the other problems with the reference, as a self-published advertiser-supported website, again, the source fails WP:V and WP:RS. -Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted miscategorization

I have deleted this category because this page does not discuss "Crimes that have aspects involving Satanism or the occult." ResearchEditor (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse and the "satanic panic" of the 1980s are intimately associated with the FMS debate. While I agree that it was a miscategorization, this historical context (and its use as evidence both in favor of and against the FMS hypothesis) should be explicitly mentioned. --Kajerm (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

recent edits

I have restored an entire section that was deleted by an anonymous IP address w/o reason. The anon IP also deleted the phrase "so-called." I have added this back as "alleged" which more closely reflects the source and is more NPOV. I have deleted the one sentence history section which was unsourced. I added a line in the header about frequency rate from the Whitfield "Memory and Abuse" source that comes from a section on page 13 of his book, that he backs with four additional sources. I also combined several duplicate references. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

recent revert and tags

I have deleted an unrelated link and undid bold on a link to fix undue weight. I propose that the old tags on the top of the article be removed, since they haven't been discussed in a long time. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sighing

This page is a travesty. With all due respect, that is.

I spent alot of time working on this page and Recovered Memory Therapy last fall before taking a break for my own sanity. Looking at what exists now is simply depressing. I admire the attention and work people have given, but this is far too important a topic to remained mired in b*llsh*t. I am proposing a ground-up re-write. I am not a seasoned WP vet, though WP shouldn't be run by seasoned WP vets anyways, but I wonder if there is any possibility of doing this: for over a year, I have observed these pages serving as battlegrounds for two opposing positions. WOuld it be at all feasible for us to come out and acknowledge this and create a discussion thread where we each state what our intention is and form two groups, then mediate between them? Maybe DreamGuy is going to come along and cite some arcane b*llsh*t explaining why this is in wild violation of something or other, but isn't it the basic problem here? If we could do that and start from the ground up by discussing each substantive change and trying to establish consensus, we might really have something. Just a thought. Start you flaming, snarking.....NOW! West world (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what's bothering you about the article. Mediation when there is no active dispute is a rather unusual suggestion. Respecting work that one considers to be crap is rather unusual too. You're also complaining about an editor who has not commented on this page for seven months, what's the point of that? And, your invitation to start flaming and snarking seems a bit cynical, to put it mildly. What is it you want to accomplish here? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must support Westworld and ask for a complete rewrite.

Have been, am reading Derren Brown, Irrationality, Kluge and Mistakes were made and the article as written does not begin to approach current thinking in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.222.230 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) --82.12.222.230 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. FMS really does exist, and should be treated medically. :lol:

Oh, you wanted to assert that it was a FMSF plot to discredit children's true accusations of molestation. Not without a source.

Actually, the article seems reasonably balanced, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, mr comedian Arthur Rubin, let's take it up. First off, please explain your ha-ha comment about "FMS really does exist and should be treated medically" not to mention ":lol:". Mr Rubin, what the f does that mean. This page is propaganda. It treats DID and the predominantly accepted scientific mechanism thereof as a highly contested theory. It does not represent the generally accepted truth of its specialists (that DID is a real diagnosis) and as such is simply a glaring example of WP being ruled by a bunch of silly bullies. I am, again, proposing a mediated ground-up re-write. West world (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your initial suggestion has some merit, but the article is balanced between the two views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hammond et al. 1998

I've a copy of Hammond, D. Corydon; Brown, Daniel P.; Scheflin, Alan W. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393702545. for two weeks via the magic of Interlibrary Loan (wikipedia owes me $2 and that's not counting overdue fees). If anyone would like verification of how this source is represented on any of the pages, please let me know in the next two weeks. WLU (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the entire book. Let's work out a version on the talk page that all can agree with. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Theories section

There are currently two potential versions for the theories section. Here are both, before and after. Some comments:

1. My previous edit was to remove extensive quotations, per WP:QUOTE and WP:SS. Quotes are generally deprecated unless necessary due to difficulty summarizing or controversy. Quotes in footnotes are dumb, give undue weight in the footnote section, and particularly unnecessary in the Dallam article since it is the abstract that is quoted, which is readily available on-line. Quotes should be used on an exception basis due to controversy requiring verbatim or difficulty summarizing, not because someone thinks they illustrate a point well.
2. Leadership council is used twice. This is not "some researchers also think", this is "the same researchers have two opinions". Particularly bad since "other researchers" leads both quotes and the second quote by leadership council is not led by a statement that requires the other side of the debate.
3. What is the feminista website? My filters actually block it. Is it a reliable source? A journal? An opinion piece? Only 29 results show up on Google, and wikipedia is high on the list.
4. This is not a large article change, this is a summary of unneeded quotes by the same people or possibly unreliable sources.
5. A blanket revert removed several innocuous changes such as my use of a citation template. I've corrected but please be aware in the future.
6. Ofshe should be on the page, but not in this section. That's not a theory, that's a case report. There's no theory attached, just that someone could have false memories implanted. Put it somewhere else, not here. WLU (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ and external links

The DMOZ page I added contains all the links that were removed and re-added earlier. I think this pretty much eliminates any need to re-add them or dispute their inclusion. Any dissent? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)