Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

DID remains a controversial diagnosis
The lead should reflect what is in the body of this article, namely that this diagnosis has been and still is controversial. The following properly cited sentence was removed from the lead. "It remains a controversial diagnosis." It is UNDUE to remove a single sentence mentionioning this fact from the lead. Here are just a few of the citations which backup the word the literal word "controversial" let alone the general notion of this being a contested diagnosis: I can keep doing this, but I think it's clear at this point that DID remains controversial. It is UNDUE to keep any mention of that fact out of the lead, and it goes against WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Despite recognition in the current and past versions of the DSM, DID remains a controversial psychiatric disorder, which hampers its diagnosis and treatment."
 * Current text in the "Controversy" section: "DID is among the most controversial of the dissociative disorders and among the most controversial disorders found in the DSM-5." This has been supported by recent consensus and the following 3 RS:
 * 1"Although dissociative disorders remain controversial..." "Dissociative disorders are among the most controversial..."
 * 2“..estimates of the prevalence of dissociative (sic) disorders vary widely and are associated with considerable controversy.”
 * 3"Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a complex and controversial diagnosis that has undergone multiple revisions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual..."
 * Next, here is a current Psychology Today opinion piece that may not qualify as RS, but certainly provides WP:TERTIARY support, per policy "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight. "In psychiatry, there’s no more controversial diagnosis than dissociative identity disorder (DID)" LINK


 * Absolutely agree with this, though I think "remains a controversial diagnosis" is rather vague and obscures the nature of the controversy.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. It should probably resemble something closer to the Johns Hopkins Guide on DID: https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_Psychiatry_Guide/787069/all/Dissociative_Identity_Disorder The article has been overrun by those in the pro-trauma model camp, which is controversial. The sidebox is also enormous. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

اكتب 37.40.121.109 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * DID is definetly controversial, at least. For what it's worth, I remember my undergrad psychology textbooks explicitly stating that DID isn't a valid condition. It gave the impression that there was no shot it was valid. I'm not an expert and I don't claim to remember at the details, but I was thoroughly convinced that DID didn't exist as a valid disorder construct despite my initial skepticism due to the DSM-V. In addition, assuming DID is valid, the "trauma-only" camp is at best pseudoscientific.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863557/
 * "Studies have shown that the hippocampus and amygdala may be as much as 16% smaller in people with BPD and have suggested that experiences of trauma may lead to these neuroanatomical changes."
 * "They found that BPD subjects had overall reduced grey and increased white matter volume in areas 24 and 31."
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246874992030017X?via%3Dihub
 * "When compared to the brains of normal controls, DID patients show smaller cortical and subcortical volumes in the hippocampus, amygdala,"
 * "DID patients also show larger white matter tracts that are responsible for information communication between somatosensory association areas," Kate the mochii (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A critic would say that you're simply measuring people who are susceptible to iatrogenesis, or are just seeing the results due to comorbidities.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 04:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that the symptoms of DID can be real, as I have seen it in a person I knew very well who was diagnosed with DID. That doesn't convince me of the validity of the construct, though.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

In Fiction...
...Seen a Law & Order episode featuring this. In this, a woman was arrested for a grisly murder. It turned out that she has this mental illness. Can a In Fiction section be used? Thanks. Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See the existing subsection In popular culture.  General Ization Talk  16:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

in fiction
The character "Mike" from the TV show Total Drama: Revenge of the Island stated that he had Multiple Personality Disorder 174.168.61.76 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We should remove the infobox
The infobox is particularly problematic because it presents one cause "the trauma model" as fact, when it is disputed by the scientific community. It is particularly difficult to include the sociogenic model in there too. Infoboxes are not required on articles, and I think this might well constitute a WP:DISINFOBOX: "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse".The problem is I cannot see how it would be "improved" without becoming absurdly long and confusing. Thus, it makes more sense to remove it entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Bump? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the cause has been updated to "disputed". I agree with you, however, it a really long infobox, which sort of defeats the purpose. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Page should be deleted
or at least make it sure that it's clear that DID is a fictitious disorder 2A00:23C8:903:FE01:2C69:DE3A:315D:3FD3 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's in the DSM, which is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. lizthegrey (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The page shouldn't be deleted, but the disorder is certainly disputed as an organic phenomena. As for DSM, Allen Frances who lead the DSM-5 development wanted to delete the disorder entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinions are divided as to its origins, or whether it is even a naturally occurring disorder at all, but there is no doubt that there are those who show its symptoms or that it can be observed in parts of the world. The page should obviously not be deleted; DID is an observable phenomenon and whether one believes it is "real" or iatrogenic, culture-bound, sociogenic or caused by trauma, it is notable and merits inclusion. If you feel the article needs more information, you are welcome to contribute.  ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧  01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)