Talk:Cassandra complex (psychology)

Article Should not be a Vehicle for LinkSPAM and Promotion of non notable Agenda
It has already been determined (Talk:Cassandra phenomenon) that Maxine Aston and Faas.org are non-notable and unencyclopeadic for inclusion in even a more general article let alone in one that specifically relates to psychology. Both are self published, not peer reviewed and (in the case of Maxine Aston) tend to change the name of their DIY disorder regularly.

I also notice that the IPs from which repeated efforts are made to promote these two agenda are made originate in the same small town in Australia and I would like to point out that, at this point, the line into WP:SOCK is very close to being crossed. --Zeraeph (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeraeph, When you say "it has already been determined that Maxine Aston and FAAAS are non-notable" it is important to not mislead readers by omitting that it is you personally, along with your sidekick CeilingCrash, who is doing the aforementioned "determining". FAAAS is a non-profit, reliable secondary source of note, and Maxine Aston's work also qualifies as notable. Maxine Aston also holds a Master's degree in Health Psychology which qualifies her to coin and apply a "psychological metaphor" to certain groups of individuals. Finally, the reference to Aston's work on the FAAAS page does not qualify as Link spam.


 * Your repeated efforts to attack Maxine Aston are well known to Wikipedia editors, and I suggest that rather than pointing out "other peoples agenda", you look instead at your own repeated efforts to blank all mention of her from the internet.


 * Anyway, this is the place to discuss changes, and I recommend that you suggest changes here before going on another blanking spree without gaining editor consensus.


 * Regards- Goddessculture (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Faaas page does not meet criteria for WP:RS for any article, let alone one related to psychology. Faaas is a small self appointed organisation of Amateurs that does not even meet WP:NOTE. Maxine Aston is neither formally published nor in any way peer reviewed. In addition, "health psychology" is hardly a relevant field. --Zeraeph (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Without evidence for the notability/reliability of either FAAAS or Maxine Aston, there is no place in this article for her/their ideas.  Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Misrepresenting an editor to another editor to suppress information is NOT the way to create a dignified article. FAAAS does qualify as a reliable and notable secondary source for Maxine Aston's metaphorical use of the Cassandra metaphor, and it does not qualify as "linkSPAM". Have your way with it, Zeraeph. Goddessculture (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironically, it was none other than Zeraeph herself who suggested in the ['Cassandra phenomenon' discussion area] that this present 'Cassandra complex' page be established: [quote] "renaming to Cassandra complex seems an obvious next move here". Remind me to not follow such advice in future. Goddessculture (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Faaas is a small amateur organisation that, it's self published, unaccredited website is not a notable and reliable for anything.

I do not in any way object to the creation of this article (though it should be merged with Cassandra phenomenon) I have not requested it's deletion. I simply object to the abuse of this article for the promotion of non notable agenda, and the use of sockpuppets, in a manner against policy, in it's creation. Particularly when neither invalid source has ever used the term at all. --Zeraeph (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Regarding Zeraeph's [merger proposal] I'd like to suggest that the Cassandra phenomenon page is presently a bric-a-brac [synthesis of published material] which attempts to merge all metaphorical uses of the mythic Cassandra figure under the idiosyncratic adjective "phenomenon": a word NOT used by most authors. I.e. the Cassandra phenomenon entry gathers disparate mentions of "Cassandra" from such sources as psychologists, myth, and movies and places them under a title designed by Tony Attwood for use specifically in the context of Asperger's syndrome relationships.

As soon as you employ a single title such as "Cassandra phenomenon" you immediately disqualify the other phrases and their varied definitions, eg. 'Cassandra complex', or 'Cassandra disorder', or 'Cassandra syndrome', or 'Cassandra in cinema', or 'Cassandra in pop-culture'. (PS. as a good pop-culture example we have the environmentalist movement employing "Cassandra" to people who are disbelieved when they talk about looming environmental disasters such as global warming).

Therefore the ONLY way to avoid an unworkable synthesis is to title a new page "Cassandra as metaphor" (or similar) and then list the subcategories: Environment, Psychology, Movies, In popular-culture, etc. Such a move allows all the disparate material to be displayed as examples of this one mythic metaphor. Alternatively all these metaphorical uses of Cassandra could all be placed on the Cassandra (Greek mythology) entry. Goddessculture (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A violation of WP:SYN can be avoided through proper wording to ensure no implications of similarities unsupported by the provided sources. But I'm not sure how this would be possible to do, or whether a merger is necessary.  Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As 'Cassandra phenomenon' was coined to refer explicitly to Asperger syndrome relationships, I cannot see how a mention of the Cassandra theme in hysteria (for example), or in movies (for example) can be subsumed under 'Cassandra phenomenon' simply by 'proper rewording'. The title precludes it. Nevertheless, I wish editors all the best in attempting such a move, if they attempt it, and I look on with interest. Goddessculture (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As it turned out on the day 'Cassandra phenomenon' had NEVER actually been coined to refer to ANYTHING in any truly encyclopaedic way, and should have been re-named to "Cassandra Complex". BUT it COULD be used as a descriptive umbrella term that would cover both "complex" and "syndrome" as both useages are similar and remarkably obscure. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, in the given sources 'Cassandra complex' refers specifically to the metaphorical use of Cassandra in cases of hysteria. Goddessculture (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed structure for merger
Cassandra as metaphor

LEAD: (maybe something like) Cassandra was a figure from Greek mythology whose prophetic insights into the future were disbelieved by her contemporaries, but which nevertheless came true. This Greek myth has been taken up in modern times and employed as a metaphor for individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal circumstances, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others.

The Greek Cassandra myth:

The Cassandra metaphor in psychology:
 * Laurie Layton Schapira on 'hysteria'
 * Jean Shinoda-Bolen on the 'Cassandra woman'
 * Tony Attwood on Asperger's relationships
 * Melanie Klein on Guilt? (apparently she uses the Cassandra metaphor in her 1963 'Envy and Gratitude' though I have not read it).

The Cassandra metaphor in popular culture:
 * Movies
 * In the environment movement
 * In the corporate world/stock-market

Thats all I've got. Goddessculture (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________ Goddessculture (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't use Tony Attwood by consensus, particularly as he disavowed his own usage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cassandra_phenomenon&diff=117664992&oldid=116893190 ). I do not see why you cannot log in under your original username and acknowledge you various WP:COI and WP:POV? --Zeraeph (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have disused the Soulgany101 account and created the Goddessculture account, and I have not overlapped their use. I have also notified Wikipedia management of that change. Regarding WP:COI the only person I can see this applies to is yourself. Goddessculture (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you have decided to "come out" I do not personally admire sneaky behavior. Now all you need to do is "disuse" your original User:Soulgany I hope from now on you will be logging in and not confusing the issue with multiple IPs as well? WP:COI doesn't apply to me at all. I am not the one who tries to use Wikipedia to promote people I share a publisher with. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never met Aston or Attwood. So making the link between publishers is about as good as linking you and I cause we "share the same planet". Lol Goddessculture (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a valid comment, particularly considering your long history of WP:POV pushing. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only POV I'm interested in here is 'consensus', rather than your POV alone. Hopefully others can comment on your proposed merger of articles in their own way. Goddessculture (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Change the format to Cassandra (metaphor) (just to follow existing format for similar types of article eg this one) drop everything that is WP:OR, not WP:NOTE, not WP:RS and/or already excluded by clear consensus from existing articles. Redirect existing articles and I do not see any further problem.


 * If it is worth mentioning there WILL be clear WP:RS from properly published, peer reviewed and accredited academic sources, if not, it needs to stay unsaid, and I feel certain that, as a published author in a related field, when you calm down, your own first priority will be to present only properly researched, published, peer reviewed and accredited academic sources in accord with WP:RS too.


 * Presenting all side of an issue in an encyclopaedic way is fine, using wikipedia to promote self appointed and published individuals with their own biased agenda is not, EVEN if that "own biased agenda" would be otherwise considered valid and encyclopaedic if presented neutrally in accord with WP:RS.


 * If it means that much to you to present the position of people with AS as destructive abusers why not make a personal challenge of validating it properly? If you did that, I would not only have to accept it (whether I agreed with it or not), but I would also *choose* to have greater respect for your integrity in presenting it.


 * FYI, for myself, if I could not find adequate properly researched, published, peer reviewed and accredited academic sources in accord with WP:RS to present a position or assertion I would feel myself forced to reconsider my own attitude to it. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats a better title. As for the hyperbole about me needing to paint AS folks as destructive abusers.... well, its just that: hyperbole. If you punch both 'Asperger's' and 'Cassandra' into a search engine you get 6,770 entries, which is probably more than all the other metaphorical uses of Cassandra combined. Add to that the flimsy sources for each contextual use of Cassandra and you should see it in context.

To be clear, I don't care that much about whether Aston's or Attwood's use of the Cassandra motif gets elaborated and defined beyond a brief sentence saying that they do use the metaphor. Put more simply it is the fact that they use the metaphor and that it has a fairly wide parlance, rather than the detail of how they define it that is relevant. If there needs to be an elaboration (of thier ideas) then that can be done somewhere else. Nevertheless, if it is important to include all applied examples of this metaphor except only that by Aston/Attwood, then I'm not that interested in debating it.... what is important now is that the Cassandra article gets some internal consistency. I'm happy for the title change and text merger to go ahead with or without reference to Cassandra in AS context. Goddessculture (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By consensus, Aston doesn't get a mention because she is WP:OR that is not from WP:RS and Attwood doesn't get a mention because he already disavowed the passing mention he made of "Cassandra" himself and is not longer considered WP:RS, not least because his only publisher offers self publishing facilities, (see Cassandra phenomenon though, as, I think, you participated in that discussion you should be familiar with it). Apart from which, as someone who shares a publisher with Attwood and Aston you are clearly WP:COI if you get WP:UNDUE about it (but NICE TRY :o) ). If you can get your friend User:SandyGeorgia to post reference to Attwood and Aston with a citation that meets the same standards she demands of others I will accept it. But I doubt if you can. Bluntly, she will not risk her reputation to do that.


 * And it certainly is not hyperbole to describe Aston's agenda (or your own to be honest) as presenting AS people as destructive abusers, because that is precisely what her agenda (and yours) is (I understand she got dumped by an Aspie shortly before determining this course? But I have no idea why you do). She also trys to depict them as solely responsible for any dysfunction in their relationship or partner, which is, when you think of it, not far short of a crazy claim, because, after all, the partners of people with AS chose freely, as adults, to be with them, they were not kidnapped and held hostage. For example, a person would have to be barking mad to even consider a relationship with me, so it really wouldn't be right for them to turn around and blame me for their deficit in sanity at some later stage, now would it?


 * But apart from those references, please feel free to start the merger right away. Nothing else makes any kind of sense.--Zeraeph (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. I've got the Klein book 'Envy and Gratitude on the way. If theres anything from that volume worth adding here I'll do it at a later date. Goddessculture (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great, take your time :o) --Zeraeph (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to defend myself from any of the above wild claims, and consider them just more irrelevant hyperbole. As for Aston's use of Cassandra, she makes it overwhelmingly clear that Aspies are NOT responsible for the said Cassandra "affective deprivation" because some NT-AS partnerships don't suffer it! Therefore the problem cannot be laid at the feet of the AS individual. What Aston does say is that there is a ALSO a pathological response from the non-AS partner which leads to a dyfunctional affective dialogue in in the "relationship". She then coaches BOTH partners in how to better work together to overcome the problem. Thats my understanding of it, and I think Attwood probably has the same in mind: it is not about laying all responsibility at the feet of AS, and to characterize it that way is, you guessed it: hyperbole. I won't be having a further opinion on that as I just don't think its that important to discuss here. If I get time later I might start to work on the article. Goddessculture (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not mislead anyone about what I actually replied "That's great, take your time :o)" TO shall we? Just for fun, let's keep it straight? Actually there is no reason why I shouldn't start the merge myself if you don't have time really is there? --Zeraeph (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, I can't do something for about two hours. If I don't see anything then I'll begin. Goddessculture (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Cassandra in pop-culture
Google Scholar search

Cassandra and Environment

Cassandra and the corporate world

Apparently there are a handul of movies and popular books which employ this metaphor, and a band. Will look later. Goddessculture (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)