Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: How I should have acted to begin with pseudoname

Posted by antigua on July 28, 2006, at 22:38:42

In reply to How I should have acted to begin with daisym, posted by pseudoname on July 28, 2006, at 21:02:22

> In therapy, the therapist and the client may both be satisfied of a memory's historic accuracy, and that belief may be important to them and the therapy process, but if they are not legally imposing it on others, then the political "Anti" activists are overstepping their bounds by interfering there. I assume they're motivated by a larger goals in regard to recovered memory and the courts.
> But I disagree that the "problems" of the two camps are equivalent. I've read stories about the Anti movement's political shenanigans and scandals. But those are different sorts of problems entirely from the scientific evidence problems of recovered memory.

1. I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the problems I've read about are so different. The Anti-Movement was founded by a set of parents who were defending themselves against accusations from their daughter. Their underlying motive was clearly biased in an effort to dispute her claims and save their reputation. Denial is denial is denial; i see no difference.

> Opponents of recovered memory therapy do not have the problem of rejection or no-confidence statements by virtually all of the major relevant scientific and professional societies. They don't have the problem of a lack of scientific evidence currently available supporting their current specific assertions. Those are not "just as many problems" nor as severe.

2. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think you would be arguing the exact opposite.
> I agree that as we learn more about the brain and collect more information about, for example, CSA victims, we may in fact discover that active repression does occur and can influence later behavior

3. I think it has been proven, at least anecdotally, if not scientifically that active repression does occur. The standard I've followed is that the earlier, more severe and more often the abuse occurs, it is more likely that the memories are repressed. Throw in that some things may have happened pre-verbally and
you have a whole other issue to deal with, which I don't know how it would be possible to deal with "scientifically."

and that it can be reversed in therapy
4. I don't think it can ever be reversed; it's something to deal with and hopefully integrate into the self.

it goes against currently available evidence.
5. not according to what I've learned.

So it might be true, and someone might want to do therapy work based on that possibility, but the basis for doing so would not be equivalent to that of any other mainstream therapy. On the other hand, it might accomplish more.

6. Again, what do you define as "mainstream therapy"? We could be arguing apples and oranges without citing specifics.

> The problem I'm most concerned about is when such a tactic causes harm without benefit. False memories have been implanted, as even Bass & Davis acknowledge. Given that risk, and no means for assessing what the risk is, I don't know how a disinterested therapist could support it. A client may choose on her own to go that route anyway (I've done it and taken other treatment risks), but the therapist's requirement to do no harm would seem to preclude the therapist's participation. To me, it seems that way.

7. I certainly accept that false memories can be planted by therapists. I'm not arguing that at all. your Ts suggesting that you may have repressed memories made you seek out to see if it was true, and I could see how that could lead to false memories. My therapy has never worked that way; it has never been pushed on me. I have always lead my therapy.

> > I think it is how it is managed afterwards AND the trauma itself. It is all very complicated.
> Yes, I agree. And we can throw in genetics, too. Events sure do impact different people very differently. My "tree" analogy was taken from "Robyn Dawes", who was talking about studies of later-life differences between people exposed to early-life trauma and those without trauma, which found statistically very little differences in the areas they measured.

8. what areas did they measure? this is crucial information, especially if you're referring to a scientific study.

>> I'll concede that it's complicated and we will probably be surprised by further research. (But that surprise could also come to those who believe that recovered memories are real, couldn't it?)

9. I guess what sets my defenses off is that for years I denied anything happened to me, and once there was enough evidence that it did happen I still fought to denial. The denial can do great damage, to doubt oneself, and place oneself right back to no, it didn't happen to me. There are many parts to a memory--they can be very visceral and to discount those that are accurate does a great disservice to the efforts of those who are seeking to claw their way out of the effect csa has had on their lives.

Feel free everyone and all to respond. I'm more than open to discussion.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:antigua thread:670899