Talk:Recovered-memory therapy/Archive 1

Nicely done
This is a great start to an artical. Not sure why it wasn't here before. --(Signed: J.Smith) 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Neither am I. Grandmasterka 08:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Ummm no. I think this is notable enough to have it's own articile. (Signed: J.Smith) 17:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Very notable, I created a separate article on purpose. Grandmasterka 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. It seems notable, all right, and I'd move repressed memory to this space. Dan 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These seem like very different topics to me. This article is about one particular treatment and the other is about the defence function in the brain. ---J.S (t|c) 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The other article mainly talks about this treatment. The debate seems to exist solely because of recovered memory therapy. The references relate to RMT and "psychiatric folklore." Do you know of any research on "repressed memory" that has no relevance to RMT? Dan 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on the subject, but one article on the "illness" and one on a "treatment" dosn't seem out of line. Perhapse the actual content overlaps, but thats not an indicator that the best solution is to merge the articles. ---J.S (t|c) 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal seems simple enough. Repressed memory has a large section on recovered memory therapy, a section that mainly talks only about recovered memory therapy. Much of that information should be moved here, leaving an intro paragraph with a main tag which links to this page. Radagast83 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion ''It is worth noting that traumatic events, like any events, can be forgotten - and once forgotten, can be subsequently remembered, possibly with the aid of a trigger. (Eg. Revisiting a place.) Not all memories ‘recovered’ in therapy need be discarded out of hand, and one does not need to be in therapy to experience ‘eureka’ type moments of spontaneous recollection. A healthy amount of scepticism for memories that differ greatly from all other known information seems pragmatic, particularly with what is known about the brain’s ability to for creative thought(See false memory).''


 * Regarding that section, it smacks of original research. I'm gonna remove it until we can cite some sources and change the language a bit to remove the "this is how it really is" kind of tone. (copied here so it's not lost in hussle and bussle of edits) (Signed: J.Smith) 07:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a better way to phrase this would be under he context of a "critics and supporters" section borrowing from some of the other areas? (Signed: J.Smith) 07:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a way to say to the reader 'we aren't belittling your recovered memory.' I feel some kind of disclaimer/discussion is necessary, because others have a strong opposite take on the reality of recovering memory and this article isn't complete until that is covered (MaxMangel 08:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).


 * Can you find some citations and support? This actical is really about the specific therapy called "recovered memory therapy" and not about repressed memory in general.  Can you refraze it in that context? (Signed: J.Smith) 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Biased!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The DSM-IV recognizes the existence of posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder--all of which are terms describing the fragmentation of memory due to traumatic experience. The DSM-IV is a widely used manual, with high credibility, in the therapeutic community. It is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of patient’s fragmented memories of childhood sexual abuse and the DSM-IV’s recognition that memory fragmentation and repression are possible, that childhood sexual abuse can lead to memory fragmentation and repression.

Finally, should you read the site http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/ you will find evidence that the majority of the psychological community believe that repressed memories are supported as "real." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephimm (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, you've added some useful stuff to the article. Grand  master  ka  23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculously biased article. "Recovered memory therapy" is not a form of psychotherapy at all and it is a term you will rarely find in psychotherapeutic literature or research. RMT is a term that was created by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and their coalition of backlash academics (Loftus, Ofshe) in the early 1990s, and the phrase appears most commonly in their literature, where they place evidence-based treatment for traumatic amnesia into the same category as fringe practices such as 'rebirthing' (etc) in order to discredit psychotherapists who provided care and support to survivors of child sexual abuse.


 * The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded by pro-incest advocates like Ralph Underwager who publicly stated that the decriminalisation of paedophilia is a "legitimate goal" and that the current "hysteria" about child sexual abuse was being whipped up by "radical feminists" who were jealous of the "intimacy" of sex between a man and a boy. To see his rhetorical strawman being further promulgated here on Wikipedia is very sad, particularly since the debate has moved on so much since Underwager, Loftus and other backlash activists held any credibility.


 * This entire article needs to be rewritten, but given the rapid nature of backlash activists on Wikipedia, that can be someone elses fight. --Biaothanatoi 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed about both the rewrite and the inevitable backlash nastiness. But this page is basically propaganda, so someone needs to do it. The term RMT is an umbrella term that collects a bunch of different therapeutic practices and tries to argue they are equally in-credible, thus making it sound as though the kind of traumatic memory (yes, often related to incest) which is recognized by the APA, NIH, etc. is as invalid as memories of satanic cult activity or alien abduction. One example: trying to posit rebirthing and Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing as 1) related to each other and 2) similar in reputability, is flatout propaganda. EMDR is sanctioned by the APA, the Veterans Administration, etc. and has been used widely with Iraq vets, Katrina survivors and 911 witnesses. Furthermore, some people have argued that memories of alien abduction, satanic activity, etc. which are (forgive my bias here) almost certainly not memories of actual events may arise from the desire to create images or a narrative that makes sense of real traumatic memories that are not encoded visually or in language.  West world 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-Write Proposed
Like the False Memory page, this entry is not ethical. Google the phrase "Recovered Memory Therapy" and within the first 300 hits, after which I stopped checking, you will not find a single positive description of RMT. You will find a coalition of webpages relatd to the FMSF and various other activist groups.

I am not disputing 1) the possibiity of Iatrogenic False Memories or 2) the existence of therapies that were used to unlock Repressed Memories.

However, this page simply must represent the derivation of the term and contextualize it within its cultural milieu. I have not found a definitive historical derivation, though I am looking, but it certainly seems as though the term was coined by Ralph Underwager and/or other FMSF activists. I am advocating that the first usage be identified (ala OED) and that the article be re-structured around the linguistic entity RMT.

Again, this is a very heated page, and I only want to build consensus before making any edits. Perhaps we can get a dialogue going and use the sandbox to reach a working agreement on a more neutral entry.

Peacefully yours, West world 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Recovered Memory Therapy" was coined by Richard Ofshe, board member of the FMSF, and promulgated through the FMSF network of academics etc. It is an FMSF category created for political reasons (e.g. to undermine claims of abuse that arose in the context of psychotherapy) rather then scientific reasons, and it should be acknowledged as such. It is extremely unethical for WP to claim, as it does here, that RMT is an actual category of psychotherapeutic practice. You have my full support in making some changes and I'll happily contribute.--Biaothanatoi 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chasing you around.... I'll certainly google it, but do you have an academic reference that supports the fact that Ofshe coined the term? Would be very useful....

West world 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no RMT "supporters"
"It is however, a term that is now commonly used by both its supporters and its detractors to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events."

This sentence, from the intro, needs to go. There are, to my knowledge, no self-described supporters of "RMT." I'll give it a few days, but unless AR or anyone else can come up with some examples, not to mention proof this is "common," I will remove that sentence. Furthermore, people who do practice in the field of trauma would argue they are not "retrieving" memories, but re-associating them. This is a crucial semantic difference that needs to be addressed. Thanks. West world 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole has two sections labelled "Supporter" and "Critics", so unless these sections are re-named, I would suggest that this is an indication that people are classifying themselves as "supporters". I put the sentence in, so I will have a go at improving it. As an alternative, how about: "It is however, a term that is used to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events." MatthewTStone 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the full nature of the objections to term.
 * RMT is not a psychological category of any kind and therefore it does not have "supporters" in the psychotherapeutic community. RMT is a pejorative rhetorical category created and used almost solely by groups of people accused of sexual abuse (e.g. the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) and their supporters to cast doubt on claims of abuse that arise in the context of therapy.
 * Your attempt create balance by addressing RMT "supporters" and "critics" presumes that RMT is a scientific category, rather then part of a larger political strategy by a particular gorup of people. The article needs to be changed to acknowledge the context in which the term RMT arose, and how it was used by particular people to advance a particular cause. --Biaothanatoi 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The pejoratively named therapy exists, but is not called RMT by its "supporters". (Or at least, that how the article reads now, and what I believe to be correct.)  If there's something wrong with that interpretation, please provide sources.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also now a "Critics of the Term" section in the article to address this issue. It includes a reference to who probably coined it and why. However, I'd say the controversy over the term is pretty much over, as these days it's in use by some quite credible sources MatthewTStone 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The category of RMT was created by a fringe activist group of people accused of child sexual abuse and their supporters. This is a historical fact and it has been excised from this article, making the article itself little more then propaganda for a particular POV. Unfortunatley, it seems that some editors happen to share that POV, and have taken it upon themselves to impose it on Wiki readers. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not historical fact. It may be a scientific theory, but there are certainly a number of credible examples of this "therapy" being applied, with unfortunate results. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The name may have been invented by retractors and their therapists (rather than the accused and 'their'' counsel), but the category has existed for some time. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In its current form, the article states: "The term 'Recovered Memory Therapy' has in the past been controversial, particularly in the USA. It was coined by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which some critics suggested reflected a political motivation." So it explicitly states who coined the term, and the 'political motivation' behind it. That being said, it must be at least 15 years since the term came into being, and its origins are now less relevant than they were. There are cited references in the article that show it is now in use by lawyers, judges, psychologists, and many other professionals. One psychotherapists' peak body states in its RMT guidelines: "...'Repressed Memory Therapy' (sometimes known as 'Recovered Memory Therapy), or RMT, has been practised in some quarters by psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and counsellors...". Like it or not, the term has entered the English language. MatthewTStone (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

removal of alien section and "hundreds" section, due to rules violations
I have removed the following recent additions to the article due to wikipedia rules violations. The first two paragraphs violate the wikipedia policy of wp:synth


 * Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
 * Policy shortcut:WP:SYN
 * Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Neither of the two articles mention any connection between alien abduction and rmt. The only place I could find where there is a mention at all is between alien abduction and trauma:


 * Alien Abductions: The Real Deal? By:Kaja Perina  Page 6 of 6 For McNally, the most telling difference between abductees and survivors of "veritable" trauma is not physiological but attitudinal. Experiencers unanimously state that they're glad they were abducted. "There's a psychological payoff," says McNally. "This makes it very different from sexual abuse." Trauma survivors of all stripes cite positive spiritual growth, but, "no Vietnam vet says, 'Gee, I'm glad I was a POW.'"

This quote states that they are very different.

The third paragraph removed is from religioustolerance.org No data is cited showing that "hundreds of psychotherapists" or "hundreds of people" were involved. These numbers are original research. Abuse truth 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is a synthesis... Each statement used in this section stands on its own, and has it own citation. As for the "hundreds of people" part... The article cited actually says tens of thousands of people were involved. So I would support changing some small things, but I don't think whitewashing half the criticism section is going to fly. Grand  master  ka  05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article shows no evidence for "tens of thousands or even hundreds" of people doing any of what the article mentions.


 * "Hundreds of psychotherapists began teaching that adult stress was a sign that a person was sexually abused by their parents and neighbors. Using putative techniques to "recover" these lost memories, hundreds of people eventually were convinced by their therapists that they were abused by Satanic priests, these Satanists being their own family or kindergarten teachers. Hundreds of people were convicted of these "crimes" and put in jail."


 * This is definitely original research. I will be deleting these three lines. Please feel free to re-add them as re-written providing sourced data.Abuse truth 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retractors removed from intro
MTS: hey. I removed the retractors examples because they give undue weight. The alternative would be to add a bunch of examples from the recovered memory project at brown, and then the article would get too wordy. One note: there is a key difference between self-described "retractors" and people in the brown study: cases in the Brown study are only included when they have hard corroborating evidence. As such, it would be impossible to "retract" such an allegation. I am not, in any way, trying to remove your added reference to retractors, only saying that examples are not appropriate without examples from the Brown study. Best, West world 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but retractors are a significant factor in this debate and need to be covered in more detail, with names and references. Perhaps in the "Critics" section. Also, they are not specific to the British False Memory Society. I don't know why this is in the intro, and should be removed. MatthewTStone 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed about "retractors" being very important to this page. In fact, if you have any hard numbers on "retractors" and/or lawsuits brought against therapists and the like, I think it would really put to rest some of the ongoing edit warring around this page. Among other things, some of the retractors (esp. with Bennett Braun) actually settled out of court, but are usually said to have won lawsuits. IMportant distinction no matter what one's own POV. Also -- I cannot cite proof but I have read in FMSF literature that they coined the term "Retractor".

Are you open to a change in the page structure which moves from "Critics" and "Supporters" to something more along the lines of: "Critics of RMT" and "Critics of the term RMT?" (rather than "Supporters") In my experience, people who do believe in the underlying ideas and/or science behind repressed memory would describe themselves as very critical of the concept RMT because it is 1) used primarily within the context of False Memory, and 2) because they feel it is a very crude misinterpretation of their work. No dispute, personally, that there are alot of crappy therapists out there. But I would hope there is a way to present that viewpoint, ala the ISSTD, as well as the viewpoint of the FMSF, Loftus, etc. Best West world 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes I'm certainly open to some restructuring and re-writing of this page, which could involve re-naming sections. There is also new information I am trying to track down at the moment, particularly in regard to professional groups warning against recovered memory techniques being used. By the way, I don't understand why the BFMS has re-appeared in the intro, because retractors have come forward in many countries. I will get my thoughts together and put them here before doing anything major.Should the page be tagged as "Controversial" until it is sorted? MatthewTStone 08:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support a controversial tag. I also want to clarify what you added about statements by the APA, etc. : in my reading of your source, the emphasis of those statements is not a warning that memories may be false but a strong caution to seek external verification and corroboration, plus an acknowledgement that determining objective historical veracity is only possible in that way. Will you approve that change?

Again, I think the strongest addition to this page would be some hard numbers on lawsuits or settlements brought by retractors. Will look into it. West world 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK for the moment, although I am trying track down other statements by professional groups as there have been new ones recently. In fact the intro has become a bit long and some of the material could be moved into main sections. Also I reckon Courage to Heal should be in with all the other references not in its own section.MatthewTStone 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Truth - please condense the critics of RMT section
There is way too much info here, and the section needs to be more logically ordered. Do you have time to do so? Great info though. Thanks West world 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that it is about the same length as the "Critics" section. But I am open to making it more logically ordered. Please feel free to post any ideas here. Thanks. Abuse truth 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this page.
Looking over this page, and both the Repressed memory and False memory pages, I have some suggestions.

Firstly, there's little doubt that there are some similarities between the three pages: similar arguments, similar references, the same two camps taking opposite sides. But you could argue that RM and FM can often seem like rather academic debates, and even that those two pages should be merged.

This page however, Recovered Memory Therapy, is quite different, and should certainly remain separate and distinct.

My reasoning is this: both the RM and FM pages tend to have an emphasis on theory (the nature of memory, how it works, how much is re-constructive, etc)

However, this page is more about practice.

Because it is dealing with the 'real world', it embraces a much broader range of issues: How is the psychotherapy industry affected? What are legal professionals doing/saying - how is the law being shaped in response, etc? What is happening in the media, how is it being reported? What are governments doing/saying? How are religious groups affected? etc. Just for starters.

Initially, just re-organising the existing information into a more logical sequence. At the moment there are huge blocks of text, and just a few headings and hardly any sub-headings. Here is some food for thought:

Introduction

Literally an introduction to what the page is about, summing up what follows in 2 or 3 sentences. History

This could be trimmed a bit from its current form - some info could be shifted into other areas, as it isn't strictly speaking historical.

Controversy over the term 'RMT'

Currently way too long and should be strictly the debate about terminology - whether the term itself is in use, and by whom. A lot of what is currently in this section could be placed somewhere else or in a new section as much of the current content has nothing to do with the terminology debate at all.

Trauma model of psychotherapy

New section. Psychotherapists in the field, and theoretical background etc

RMT and the law

New section. Court cases, as well as legal opinions from lawyers, judges etc. Much has happened in this field, and it varies from country to country

RMT and the psychotherapy industry

New section. Again, because this page is about the 'real world', not just theory, I think it's important to know how different professional groups have responded.

Supporters

Needs expanding somewhat from its current form.

Critics

Existing section. Some of what is currently in this section can be moved around a bit or shifted to other areas

Retractors

New section. There has been news coverage, court cases etc over the years not really represented on the page.

References

Need to ensure that all references in text are of high quality. Minimal use of special interest links except where unavoidable.

External links

Aren't external links sections against Wikipedia policy? Perhaps the ones in this section should be labelled 'For' 'Against' 'Neither'. This will ensure that the section doesn't become unbalanced one way or the other. Also, I think within some of these sections, subheadings could be used a bit more to break the sections into digestible chunks. Any thoughts? MatthewTStone 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with format changes, provided they follow wikipedia policy. I think that labeling and separating sections "for" and "against" may be against wikipedia policy though. My major concern would be that all changes made add balance and NPOV to the page. Abuse truth 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks great, MTS. Hats off to you for putting in the time. West world 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing that I personally want to add is this: to some degree there really are "for" and "against" camps here, but as some of us have shared, most of us are just trying to present info here that recognizes our own experiences. I do not see myself as pro-"RMT" in any way. As it is described here sometimes, it sounds like an awful scam. BUT in my own experience and those of many others I care about, repressed memory/dormant memory is just, simply, real. And I worry about people who genuinely were abused and are beginning to deal with now finding bad info on WP that gets in the way of their attempts to get help. That in no way makes me belive that False Memory never happens or that there are not shady snake-oil salespeople who practice RMT, but I really worry that the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. So, I am not biased, per se, but I just want to know that good info is being given here. West world 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I take your concerns on board, re real abuse and dormant memories of it, and can see why you would have reservations. And I agree the quality of the info should be paramount in any fine tuning or changes to the page. Where I am coming from, is that I have direct experience of the snake-oil side of things and the effect it can have on people and their families (and have seen it in my own extended family). You are quite right to consider the end-user - someone who is finding info on the subject for the first time - this is after all an encyclodedic reference work. Incidentally, it is an interesting exercise to look at other WP topics that are controversial, and see how the pages communicate the info, and manage to include opposing viewpoints e.g : Creation-evolution_controversy, Existence_of_god. There must be many others too. Cheers MatthewTStone 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool WW, this is intended as a roadmap - a direction - I'm not suggesting an overhaul all in one go, but rather one small step at a time.

Lede
The lead to the article is muddled and way too long. IT needs to be clear and concise and not use the term "modality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the intro should only be two or three sentences if possible. Will do some work to eliminate the unnecessary verbiage and move specific content into relevant sections.MatthewTStone 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have started to clean up the page, and have attempted to do so without deleting any information. The changes made mainly consist of moving things out of the Lead and into relevant sections in the main article. If I have changed anything I have stated clearly in the Edit Summary. Changes have mainly occurred in the Critics of the Term section, which I have altered to more clearly reflect the current situation (RMT is a term that is now quite widely used, and not just by activists and the FMSF). There is other text that I have added along the way, but in most cases a citation has been added to support it.MatthewTStone 22:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)