horrendous article

This is a horrendous article. I have read Stranger in the mirror and it's a great book. Loftus even attacks the SCID-D that Steinberg developed. (Steinberg Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders)

The Most Dangerous Book You May Already Be Reading

Presents information on the book 'Stranger in the Mirror,' by psychiatrist Marlene Steinberg which focused on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Discussion on the relation of DID to traumatic experiences due to childhood sexual abuse; Views concerning the test developed by the author to detect DID.
By Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., published on November 01, 2000 - last reviewed on December 23, 2010
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... be-reading

I have read about that - creating false memories of abuse and what-not. And it can happen - unfortunately memory is not really that reliable - as DIDers can actually support, seeing how memories can vary, even from alter to alter, and even singletons from person to person. But that doesn't mean that repressed memories don't exist. And it certainly doesn't mean that DID and DD-NOS doesn't exist. And the treatment really does help most people. And most therapists ARE careful not to induce false memories. I have heard of some continuing to do so, but it doesn't seem to be a common thing now that the psychological community is aware that it can happen.

I can't say much on the reliability of the test, as I have not taken it, and even if I did, I can be pretty sure I'd get an affirmative result. So I can't say if the test is reliable - a truly reliable test is very difficult to create. But I'm sure it's no worse than any others out there, so one should really only bash it if they have a truly better design - which this author clearly does not.

And now that I've finished my only averagely knowledgeable rant, I'll slink out of the spotlight and leave it for someone else. ^^

Hi Tylas. Glad you're back!

Eh. Loftus sets up her own "straw man" arguments that sound vaguely like Steinberg's arguments, but actually are significantly different, then attacks her own arguments.

In any case, Steinberg's SCID-D (specifically, SCID-D-R, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders) explores dissociative symptoms, not trauma history. Because dissociation results from trauma, asking about dissociation often elicits client reports of trauma. These are not recovered memories. Many other instruments do explore trauma history explicitly, and those other instruments, not the SCID-D, are the ones Loftus should be concerned about.

Wikipedia: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV

Thank you for posting this article. I am glad to be aware that this discussion is taking place. Loftus accuses Steinberg of not presenting facts that support her findings, however Loftus cites only one case, and vaguely without enough details to validate it.

I won't deny that memories can't be fabricated, or induced. In fact, some people are probably more susceptible to the power of suggestion than others. And maybe it did happen in the eighties and nineties, when also combined with a certain medication, but the thing that "false memory syndrome" people overlook, is that this doesn't invalidate DID, but shows how certain therapeutic practices can be harmful. These events from the past illuminate ways that were ineffective in treating DID, but does not invalidate DID or repressed memories. I'm sure there are many cases of repressed memories revealed to be true. Also, sometimes proving whether a memory is true or false is impossible. But so many people on this site, identify with DID, find answers through DID and make progress in life with the diagnosis DID that calling it a fake, would cause more harm than good.

Unfortunately, we don't life in a perfect world. The truth is never clear. Memories can be fabricated and some people can and will fabricate their own DID. Drawing lines in these areas can be exceptionally difficult, and when faced with difficult things, some want to invalidate the entire disorder. This is wrong and simple-minded in my eyes.