From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Depersonalization is bad?[edit]

Why is Depersonalization always bad? Is this a Western Eurocentric bias? Isn't depersonalization what meditators spend their lives trying to achieve? I have some depersonalization gained from my meditation - and I want more of it.

There has been some back and forth on the pop culture section. I removed several bullets containing minor mentions of the disorder in movies (Girl, Interrupted; Limitless; Numb), and some unsourced text (Existentialism; American Psycho; R.D. Laing) and some non-notable mentions (Suzanne Vega's song Tom's Diner; a self-diagnosis by Sal Governale and the one probably most contested by Vanlegg, the Collision with the Infinite book, [1]).

The unsourced material can be removed without incident per WP:PROVEIT; if it is replaced, it should have a source.

The mentions in movies and books is always a source of tension; I'm not a fan, but WP:IPC isn't explicit. In any case, the pop culture item should be explicit, and involve a substantial part of the plot. Brief appearances, short mentions and single incidents are not good choices for IPC sections.

As far as Collision with the Infinite goes - it was published by a now-defunct Blue Dove Press, which had less than 20 books published, and focussed on New Age topics. It was not a medical publisher, nor was it scholarly. The page for the book's author was deleted. The actual content added was essentially a quote from the book in which it is not specified if Segal (the book's author and apparent sufferer from a depersonalization experience) was actually diagnosed (possible original research issue), and the book itself does not appear to be notable. I can't find any reviews on google news or anything meaningful in google itself. Accordingly, I support the material being removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've referred the discussion at Talk:Depersonalization disorder here to centralize discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SUZANNE SEGAL and her book "COLLISION WITH THE INFINITE" are reputable and just because this is being call new age (biased), does NOT mean that this information is not important to those folks that suffer from these problems. She was diagnosed to have these problems and she was also educated, which makes her "scholary" and makes her "notable". She has her Psy.D. degree from The Wright Institute and obtained licensure as a psychologist. See the link to her school. I have asked WLU to present his "credentials" (he says this is not needed). Suzanne Segal's link was deleted at the request of WLU who seems to have a personal problem (ie biased) with this information. By the way, how many "hits" did the page that Suzanne Segal get; before WLU asked for its deletion. This would show "what" the "public interest is" and not what WLU's interests are or are not. And if WLU can't find any good links on google then he obviously is not interested in this. There ARE plenty of links to Suzanne and also references to her. How else did I find out about her, and how else do I tell other people to "find out" about her. Due to WLU desire to delete "valuable information" by defaming it (based on his lack of information) there is now even less info available (ie Wikipedia no longer is a source). This is sad.Vanlegg (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things. One, better to be discussing this than editing back and forth over it. Two, WLU has policy grounds to remove unsourced info and request sources. Three, I'm particularly sympathetic to Vanlegg's desire to include literature and notable individuals who might be able to shed some accessible real-world insight to this type of problem. Although this track of thinking is bordering on WP:USEFUL, if we can we make decent references for books and celebrities who have suffered with this rare and confusing condition, it will help sufferers feel less alienated and often provides valuable next steps to research. Although rarely scientific, this kind of writing and trivia about health, especially psychological health, has a history of being extremely important for the growth in understanding of uncommon conditions (which often become much more common after people have a nonthreatening way to learn about them). In short, better sources, but don't underestimate the importance of popular culture when it comes to disorders such as these. Ocaasi c 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Vanlegg, please only post comments on one page, the point of centralizing to a single location is so we don't have to cross post or reply to the same commentary multiple times.
Please comment on the content, not the commentator. Credentials are not important on wikipedia, it does not matter if I have a PhD in psychology or never passed grade school - pages are edited based on neutral summaries of what is verifiable in reliable sources, and the overall framework of the policies and guidelines.
Segal's page was deleted as part of a routine article for deletion process which I initiated when I noted the subject of the page did not appear to be notable. You are free to bring this up at deletion review if you'd like, but I initiated the process, it was the community at large who determined whether the page was worth keeping or not. Google hits are meaningless for notability by the way. I have nothing personal against Suzanne Segal, but I dislike unreliable sources being used on wikipedia.
If a publisher focusses on New Age books, then they are unlikely to be reliable sources which are primarily the product of scholarly press or well-known mainstream publishers. If it focusses on personal experience, it is not likely to be a medically reliable source. If Segal published scholarly works on depersonalization, we should cite them, not her autobiography. Notability has a specific meaning on wikipedia, see my previous point.
I see no arguments indicating Collision with the Infinite should be included on the page.
Ocaasi, I don't think Segal was a celebrity (indeed, her page went through an AFD and was deleted). If you're talking about other celebrities whom I removed from the page, then per WP:BLP sourcing would be important, and must be explicit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't follow the Segal AFD, but I'll look at it. I was not talking about her, just celebrities and media in general. It appeared that several had been removed. I agree they all need sources under BLP, especially since this identifies them as having a medical condition. My main goal was to get Vanlegg to realize you had policy reasons for objecting to him, and to get you to realize that since he's 29 edits deep into WP, that he has no clue what they mean and we should try and make that process easier for him, provided he's willing to stop edit-warring. Ocaasi c 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The AFD is here if you wanted to look. Agree regarding celebrities, but since this is a page about a symptom rather than a disorder, that adds a wrinkle. Presumably the people listed at depersonalization disorder should be clearer since it's a diagnosis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that the statement that Adam Duritz suffered from depersonalization disorder was unsourced. It appears to be from this interview in Men's Health, where he discusses an unnamed dissociative disorder. It doesn't specify depersonalization, and to interpret his symptoms as such would be original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
About here versus the disorder page, I think that could go either way. It's much more inclusive to find people who are known for having the symptom than those who were formally diagnosed with the disorder, though I understand your point that the symptom is in a kind-of no-man's land regarding individuals. Sources needed either way.
I did some research on Segal here and it's very borderline--by that I mean marginal. Google, Google News Archives, and Google Scholar turn up 7 RS mentions total including her own book, a graduate dissertation, and 5 other mentions, the most notable being a Journal of the American Psychological Association book review about the book Feeling Unreal by Simeon and Abugel. It does appear that Segal has notability for popularizing this condition, though not otherwise. Her popular book Collision with the Infinite has quite a following in various forums, but it has very little RS support. In sum, I couldn't give my vote to a Segal bio page, though, I think she could perhaps have a section or paragraph in one of these two articles. Ocaasi c 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments focused on editor not content, full of caps, needs to start with basic policies

FROM VANLEGG: This is a good page to work from. I still think that you are being biased and you can prove that this is not true.

Your comment on "new age" books showed bias (they are not likely??? to be unreliable). So this argument as to the publisher is NOT VALID. The publisher is valid!!!

PLEASE be very specific in your next answer. On what premises do you "CLAIM" she is not notable? Don't use the words "not appear to be". It is not good style to delete INFORMATION because she does "not appear to be notable"; which was cause for request of deletion of her "page".

So what was the "specific meaning" of Notability or "lack of" that you ARE refering too?

CREDENTIALS are important when it comes to "defaming" others. I already told you she has her Psy.D. and this gives her AUTHORITY in the " medically reliable source " sense about a "case". She was writing about a "case" (and what better information than her own account of "her case" from a professional point of view). What do YOU say about this?

True, she was not a celebrity, but she was an authority and a "case". Like Ocaasi very kindly noted, this information is useful. Under the WP:USEFUL link it is clear that.....

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful".
—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.

HOLY are on the WAR PATH to destruction. I just looked at how you are deleting whole sections of the DEPRSONALIZATION page. I really hope somebody is going to block your "destructive path" (is this "fun and recreation" for you?)

(cur | prev) 17:42, 14 April 2011 WLU (talk | contribs) (15,741 bytes) (→Popular culture: removed cap) (undo)

You took out the WHOLE "Popular culture" section. I believe this is "vandalism". Please be correct and kind to those that SEEK information. Don't destroy it.Vanlegg (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanlegg, I collapsed your comment, since its tone and lack of familiarity with policies is going to be more detrimental than you realize. The notability guideline is about coverage in WP:reliable sources. It's not about whether someone's life was important or if they were popular in certain circles. It's just about sources. I looked. Pretty hard. I found 7 that remotely fit our sourcing guidelines (forums and self-published webpages don't count). I linked to the sources above. It doesn't matter that Segal had a Psy d, what matters is that the publishing was peer-reviewed or fact-checked. Otherwise, her autobiography is only notable if it received coverage in reliable sources (you must read the RS guideline to understand what this is about). I didn't find much coverage of her book in the press either. So maybe it's an important book and maybe it was very important to you, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. That discussion is not final, but slow down before you accuse good editors of being baseless content-deletionists. Chances are you mean very well but don't know what you're talking about with regards to our policies. Let me help you translate some of that in a way that makes sense. I'm not against New Age but I also find Segal to not meet notability guidelines for a separate article. I do think her book warrants brief mention here or at the P.disorder page. Ocaasi c 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I still would prefer not to include the book; it's non-notable, non-scholarly, and the biggest issue I have is that it invites people to add more books, trivia, movies and other unreliable cruft that mention depersonalization the symptom or depersonalization the disorder. Does the book even focus on depersonalization as a symptom, or as a disorder? From the summary here it looks more like a religious experience, not a pathological symptom. Though the brain tumour that appears to have caused it may make it a biological event. The book didn't appear to be a description by a psychologist of a person experiencing depersonalization (a la Jill Bolte Taylor), it appears to be a person having a religious experience before becoming a Buddhist (or something similar). Without a solid secondary source actually linking it to this page, this topic (depersonalization or depersonalization disorder) I don't know if it's a good inclusion because I simply don't think it applies without a good deal of shoehorning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ocaasi that this should be included, and I would like to argue again that I believe WLU has a bias against this publisher (new age) which was already shown to be a bias. It is also evident that his person has not "READ" about this. I (however) have read both books "Feeling Unreal" and her book and other books about "loss of self". It is also being argued "falsely" that this was brought on by a brain tumour (not the book). All this points to a biased opinion related to taking away information from the public. And the "biggest issue" WLU has is that this .... "invites people to add"..... (more information? excuse me ! but this is the whole point of education and Wikipedia). This is not in line with Wikipedia.
Several personal opinions
JUST FOR YOUR INFO: Now if you would like to understand some of the reasons for this "disorder" from a point of view of psychology. People have experiences that cause them to shut off the mechanism that "takes things personally" to avoid the dramatic. This is what is refered to as "loss of ego". Whether it happens due to violence, extreme drama, drug experiences, or spontaneously, it will be a "surprise" to the person. It has been noted that these people often "function better" than previously (due to less personal mental clutter) and may still feel uneasy as with a disorder. (I personally have a friend who is going through this. I also have another firend who functions this way and is doing just fine in this state.)This is "sought after" by eastern masters, and should only occur after years of training towards "detachment, compassion and devotion". Buddhism and many of these other studies are not religions in the general sense, but in the specific sense (reunion with the source).
WLU is calling this a religious experience, as if this was "wrong" and used the words "didn't appear" (biased) to be written by a psychlogist. (I didn't know that there is a specific way to be a psychologist). My mother is a Jungian therapist and Buddhist and Shamanist and there somthing wrong with being "many things". I am again making note that WLU is not being "correct" and "biased deletion" of information that was added on "good faith" and in the name of "broadening the understanding of a multifaceted field of health" should be curbed. I further think that "deletionist" as WLU "likes" to refer to himself, should "have to" follow stricter rules before "deleting anything due to biased opinions". The person who put this information on the web "in good faith" should not have to "defend it to the bone". HOWEVER the "deletionist" should be "obliged" to defend their ACTS "to the bone" before "wasting other people's precious time". The deletionist can easily take away "graffiti style" junk...(thank you WLU if you do this)...and take away "TOTALY ABSOLUTLY nonrelevant information" (stuff a 10 year old would "see" "obvious stuff)....(again thank you WLU if you do this dirty work). HOWEVER in cases like this...he/she/it/them should NOT BE ALLOWED to "destroy" information. ALTERATIONS and improvements can be argued...but NOT DELETION (especially of whole WLU did yesterday). This should be STOPPED and I will soon find out how to end this "vandalism". FURTHERMORE a deletionist should be "well aquainted" with a subject before making such "destructive (not instructive) deletions". I hope you WLU will back off this "road to biased destruction".
I am sorry my words are TO THE POINT. I am angry at WLU's ACTIONS...and not at WLU as a person. I understand you are a big help to Wikipedia and I too wish to thank you for your cleaning up and you should get an AWARD for this...however we may tend to take our personal religious biases too far and criticise "new age" and "religious experiences" as if this is not good for others. If your religion is good for you then be happy and let others find thier "WAY" back to the heart-of-life. I wish you well on this quest and I am helping many others on thier quest. By the way, I was "saved" in a little church at the age of 16 and I experienced the infusion of the Holy Ghost (it lasted 2 weeks and went away) and I also meditate regulary and I have a wonderful "athiest" wife and "born again athiest" father (both ABUSED by the religious schooling forced upon them). In our family we have many religious bigots and it is obvious when they are refer to factual events and when they get biased. It is obvious when anyone is biased. So you can see I love the Jesus guy and my family doesn't, but "biased" thoughts are not helpful. So please be the good person that "I know you are" and allow information to prosper even if it goes against your "personal ideas" as you have "shown" in your counter arguments. I am trying to be kind and warm hearted, but "your actions" got me all riled up and I am very capable of going right to the top of the chain of command if I have too. I am defending "information availability"...not deletion "of INFORMATION". I hope my kindness made it through. I feel like a good dad, slapping the hand of my daughter (done in good faith).

Vanlegg (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything over a paragraph or two is often ignored. Capitalized letters read as screaming, literally, which is not appreciated... Deletionists are miserable people and I'd get rid of them all if it wouldn't be terribly hypocritical. Being a deletionist in the realm of science is often called for, since science prizes refutation and falsifiability and facts and often lives are at stake. That said, science is also about people, and depersonalization is not just about science. I've made my point and will continue to flesh out why Segal's role with regard to this disorder--in a sociological, spiritual, and exemplar-of-a-scientific-phenomenon way--warrants some mention. Inclusionists and deletionists are both better if they don't rush, so I'll keep presenting the sources and see.
WLU, the more I read about Segal, the more it appears she is one of a few canonical examples of this phenomenon/disorder. The popularity of her book among the New Age community, the attention it received by cross-over writers describing religious/scientific phenomena, and the endorsements at least one of those books received by the APA, for me puts her well in the serious sociological and scientific discussion of depersonalization, as well as the broader spiritualist milieu. To the extent that depersonalization is a religious phenomenon, the more notable spiritualist authors (e.g. Deepak Chopra) who mention Segal also confer notability. Ocaasi c 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any issue with the other edits I made to that section? Is this section now solely about Segal and her book?
Given the tangentiality of her diagnosis to the book, if it is going to be mentioned I would suggest it be kept short for the most part, much of the information would be placed on her page rather than on the depersonalization or depersonalization disorder pages proper. I'll have to read up a bit more on google books, but it still looks like the depersonalization aspects are tangential to Segal's overall intent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been busy working on Suzanne Segal and haven't checked over here since. I'd like to see a reference to her book and a link to her bio, at least. One or two of her quotes on depersonalization would be a great asset to either page. The diagnosis of depersonalization disorder is somewhat tangential to her book (although it's explicitly mentioned), but the discussion of depersonalization in general is throughout. Although DPD is a DSM disorder, I don't think these articles should not include notable individuals who contribute understanding of the conditions through their own detailed experience. Often these people act as 'clinical anecdotes' and are very important to growth of more sophisticated models, as well as more social familiarity with them. I pulled this from Oliver Sacks: "His descriptions of people coping with and adapting to neurological conditions or injuries often illuminate the ways in which the normal brain deals with perception, memory and individuality. Sacks considers that his literary style grows out of the tradition of 19th-century "clinical anecdotes," a literary style that included detailed narrative case histories..." If you read on, that style is criticized for being weak on clinical rigor and long on literary flourishes, but--Wikipedia articles are not clinical summaries--and I reject the notion that (well-sourced) cultural, artistic, sociological, and literary details are not primary pieces in the ranging, comprehensive, colorful pictures we paint of these subjects. Ocaasi c 22:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture[edit]


Totally unrelated, why isn't this merged with Depersonalization disorder. That's a great article and this is start-class. Is this one that much different, or headed in a different direction (or is the diagnostic classification of the other exclusive enough that less clinical aspects cannot be included there). Ocaasi c 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about either to say, but it looks like one is about a symptom, the other a full disorder. That leans to two separate pages in my mind, provided the symptom has enough sources about it that the page can be expanded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the symptoms are also a part of different disorders and illnesses. So the disorder and the mere symptoms are not the same. (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed with Derealization?[edit]

Some of the descriptions are rather like the description of derealization. This may be because in literature these are often treated as connected, or even the same. Still, when I'm not me, the world usually still stays real, there are two arms right next to me, just that these are not mine, although I can control them. (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the military training thing somthing else?[edit]

Isn't the stuff about how military training makes it easier for the soldiers to kill people about how it makes them not think of their targets as persons, instead about how they perceive themselves? --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Depersonalization have another meaning[edit]

This article is about a psychological disorder, of how to view yourself, but depersonalization have a much more important meaning, that stop seeing someone else, an alien group you are not a member of, and that you hate, as persons. It is an important an necessary step towards genocide, so frankly I find that phenomenon to be way more important then some rare psychological disorder.

I have never seen the term 'depersonalization' used in this way - you may be thinking of 'dehumanization'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB02:5320:5D66:FDEB:DE85:72B1 (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A third meaning of depersonalization, is when YOU feel that others, primarily government institutions, stop seeing you as a person. In either case the subject of depersonalization is much more diverse then this article makes it seem.Rphb (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

'proper' psychotherapy?[edit]

this phrase needs sharpening as it sounds colloquial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)