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The talk page was getting long, so threads dated prior to 2008 have been archived to /Archive 1.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)

I don't see those three links on that DMOZ page.Legitimus (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Three links were removed here:

1. Recovered Memory Project at Brown University

2. Collection of full text articles on the topic

3. Directory of scholarly resources on the topic

On the Memory controversies page, the first is found on the 19th or 20th bullet down, entitled The Recovered Memory Project - An Internet-based research project which is gathering corroborated cases of recovered memories. The Jim Hopper page is the bullet immediately above, Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse - Presents scientific research and scholarly resources addressing amnesia and delayed recall for memories of childhood sexual abuse. The third is a non-specific link to a page listing "trauma articles" by Jennifer Freyd, which may be appropriate for her page but is both inappropriate here and given Freyd's research and beliefs, would be unacceptably POV towards the trauma theory of memory repression. Dynamic.uoregon.edu is also already linked in the DMOZ in the third-last bullet, Trauma & Cognitive Science Meeting - Tapes available of scientific meeting covering the way in which trauma interacts with information processing. A particular focus will be on how traumatic information is encoded, stored, and later retrieved from memory. So the only one that could arguably be included would be the third, and I believe that's unacceptable per WP:UNDUE as well as (in some cases at a stretch) a mashup of WP:ELNO points 9, 11 and 15 but fairly clearly by ELNO point 13. Fundamentally, it's a list of a person's publications and not a list of publications related solely to recovered memory. I see these links as a holdover of AbuseTruth's POV-push towards the trauma and forgetting position that never got cleaned up after he was banned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not pick old wounds. The aforementioned links are there, so that seems alright.Legitimus (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the check, it keeps me honest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The DMOZ FMS page you added first did not include those links. That's the link that was in the article when I added the three you removed. The second DMOZ link you added later when you started this discussion section, to the DMOZ Memory Controversies page, does include the links you mentioned, so that helps with keeping the external links section from moving too far to one side. Regarding Hopper's page, your description is incorrect; it is not a page of his publications, it is a collection of journal articles by many authors. There's no undue weight from that page, it only moderates the undue weight of the link you chose to keep, to the one-sided advocacy organization FMSF. This is not the topic page of the FMSF, their official website does not belong in the links section. With both of those links removed and both of the DMOZ links in place, there is some parity, though further consideration may be needed.

Regarding the DMOZ - they have no policy on NPOV or scholarly accuracy, it is an arbitrary link farm maintained by anonymous editors with no published rationale for links they choose to include. In particular, their entry on FMS is not in an academic or scientific section:

• Top: Society: People: Men: Issues: Violence and Abuse: False Accusations: False Memory Syndrome

Note that they place it in "Men's Issues", not as a topic of scientific research, probably why their list of links is so strongly slanted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

These link lists (DMOZ?) do seem to not have equal representation. But on a more pertinent matter, WLU will you slow down with the edits? It's making it quite difficult to vet them fairly.Legitimus (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm satisfied with how the EL section is now, the DMOZ sites are if anything biased towards the recovered memory side but not so outrageously so that I don't think they should be excluded. I'd hesitate to call the FMSF just an "advocacy site" since in the balance of things they appear to have been right and were a major player in the memory wars with numerous high-profile members who are respected academics in the relevant fields - Loftus, McHugh, Crews, the Freyds and Underwager (yes, the latter is a stretch). I'm probably more than a bit biased in my reading list, but the academic debate seems to have settled on the "false memories can indeed be created rather easily" side. I'll be interested to see what happens to PTSD in the next decade.

Regards my edits, I'm done for the day and since no-one asked me to stop, I didn't see a need to slow down. Please let me know if you see any issues with them (but I'd start a new section below). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Memory wars

Just a cursory search through Scopus doesn't seem to support that stance that the "memory wars" are somehow over and decided. If anything they seem to emphasize the bitter debate (Knecht, T. 2005, Pfäfflin, F., 2006). But on reflection I wonder that perhaps the wrong sort of thing is being argued about. There is a very good article by Fiona E. Raitt and Suzanne Zeedyk in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry [1] that, while refusing to take a side, emphasizes that which is of concern to people like myself: Collateral damage. Real abusers that go free because of doubt and loss of credibility to the witness, even when they did not undergo any of the snake oil RMT techniques. This loss of credibility to objectively true accusations has hurt many genuine cases. This article points out that it was once forbidden for women and children to testify in courts of law because they were though to be innately unreliable witnesses by virtue of being female or young.

For now, I'll just check this as I have time to. I already have concerns about McHugh, but I need to do some background checking.Legitimus (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's Scorpus? I certainly tend to read more of one side of the debate, my impression was that it was the side with the more reliable scholarly sources while the other side tends to publish more popular books (but I could be wrong). Do you have a copy of the article you could send me? And longer citations for Knecht and Pfafflin? Incidentally, your collateral damage statement misses what I would see as an important point - that real non-abusers go to prison (the sine qua non of the FMSF. And whatever their reputation (undeserved in my mind) for protecting pedophiles and rapists, they were a significant part of the PR-battles over recovered memories. McHugh was a good, but rather popular read and I'm open to hearing problems with it. I had thought the author was well respected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Scopus is a search engine for abstracts and scientific research, with emphasis on peer-reviewed works. However I just discovered it is only accessible to me in a usable form when at my place of work. But anyway, yes I have PDFs of these, but I don't know how to post them, and I'm not sure that's legal anyway. I'll think of something.

But here are two full cites for Knecht and Pfäfflin:

Pfäfflin, F., "The debate on the false memory syndrome" Bridging Eastern and Western Psychiatry, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 5-11

Knecht, T., "Erinnerungsbilder" von sexuellem Missbrauch. Bemerkungen zur Recovered vs. False Memory-Kontroverse" [English: "Memories" on sexual abuse. Comments on the controversial recovered vs false memories], Krankenhauspsychiatrie 16 (2), pp. 79-8.

Here is a paste from Raitt:

"The purpose of this article is not to rehearse the claims and counterclaims concerning the validity of repressed memories or FMS, as these have been thoroughly aired in the literature (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Conway, 1997; Lindsay & Read, 1995; Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Koocher, 1998). Instead, this article explores the extent to which this phenomenon plays an increasingly important role in the legal construction of credibility, one of the determining features of a reliable witness in the courtroom. Determining that a witness is incredible is the most effective route to dismissing their testimony. Historically, there have been numerous rules of evidence and procedure that have had the effect of rendering the testimony of women and children incredible. Although attempts have been made (sometimes successfully) to dilute the impact of these rules, those that remain still adversely affect the manner in which testimony concerning sexual assault is received. This article contends that the courtroom use of FMS is the latest in that tradition. It argues that those who bring charges concerning childhood abuse (most of whom are women) are disadvantaged, not primarily because of unreliable memory processes about traumatic events, but more importantly because of the historical tendency to doubt women’s credibility. This distrust continues to be reflected in the contemporary debate surrounding FMS and is even exacerbated by the rules of evidence that allow testimony on the phenomenon into the courtroom."

Legitimus (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm...those cites point to the possibly marginalized status of the debate. Knecht hardly seems like a high-impact journal, the second is in German. Do you know what the impact factor is for the Raitt journal? Judging from the abstract, it also looks like it's not talking about the scientific rational or discussion behind FMS, and is more about it's social and judicial use. Certainly could be used, and I'm interested in seeing what sources it cites. The problem with AbuseTruth's contributions is that they mainly discuss and source from when the debate was at it's height, before the claims portrayed as based on false memories began to decline. Now the moral panic over satanic ritual abuse is over and the benefits of hindsight have totally changed the debate. I'm guessing something similar is happening with false memories.

Separated into a new section because we're far from external links now, and adjusted spacing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dana Press RSN question

Because I'm not familiar with the publisher, I've asked for an opinion on Dana Press, publisher of McHugh's book, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The page isn't perfect, but can we remove the tag at the top, or at least some of the issues? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent sources

Searching in google books for false.memory.syndrome (I think the periods work like quotations that allow for dashes and other punctuation) between 2006 and 2009 turned up a couple sources:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6] - this one is pretty lengthy and skeptical/critical
• [7]

There's about 380 in total, but the number of hits per book seems to drop off after this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Long standing bias in lead fixed

For a long time now this article has been misleading readers into thinking there is no scientific basis for the concept of false memories by focusing instead on the term "False Memory Syndrome". FMS is not an official diagnosis, but false memories are well accepted. The people who came up with the original wording involved included some dedicated POV pushers, at least one of whom has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for that activity. It's long past time the wording was changed to reflect reality instead of focusing on a what amounted to a dirty trick of rhetorics, so I fixed things.

Some of the other pro-recovered memories bias is still present in the article, but at least the worst and most obvious example of POV pushing is taken care of. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Scolarpedia has a long list of sources on it's page: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/False_memory DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Recovered Memory and Repressed Memory

This subject is currently being worked on in three different places. This is not working. If want to improve the quality we need to join our forces in one centralized article.

If you read the Recovered memory and Repressed memory articles you'll notice that there is a lot of other information there that could improve this article and visa versa, but it'd be a waste of time to copy and paste sources back and forth between articles that largely deal with the same subject.

Please respond on the topic of merging on the talk page of Repressed memory. JGM73 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)