Posted by Mark H. on February 20, 2002, at 19:43:43
In reply to Re: you said I could ask more questions :-) » Mark H., posted by kiddo on February 20, 2002, at 10:43:30
Dear Kiddo,
To cover all my bases, I would have had to write a dozen pages of background and disclaimers before making my point. :-) As it was, I knew I might risk offending some by saying too little. I appreciate your kind and inquisitive tone.
Some so-called "recovered memories" are false. Some are accurate. All have psychological validity to the person who experiences them, but should those memories be considered reliable enough to serve as the basis for punishing others in the absence of corroborating evidence?
Studies show that our memories confabulate past experiences easily and readily (and universally -- we all do it). When hypnosis (or relaxation techniques, or guided imagery) is used to evoke "hidden" memories, the objective reliability of those memories falls even further. When the therapist has a clear expectation of finding a certain type of "hidden" memory, the likelihood of subtly leading the client to confabulate those memories increases (i.e., to meet the therapist's expectations and/or to find a plausible reason for one's mental or emotional suffering). In many, many cases -- without either party knowing it -- therapists convinced clients of the existence of events that never happened.
With repeated sessions, the details were filled in until the client had a vivid but false "memory" of instances of horrendous abuse. This sad ruse would be damaging enough by itself, but many therapists believed that the patient should then take legal action against his or her "remembered" victimizers both for "justice" and to provide "closure."
No one really questioned the earliest cases -- because sexual crimes were often denied in the past, therapists tended to compensate by believing anyone's statement of sexual victimization. The McMartin preschool prosecutions were among the most horrific early examples of this dilemma.
It wasn't until cases started going over the top and investigators found much of the "testimony" to be patently false that some therapists began to be concerned that their industry was not so much uncovering as *creating* the phenomenon. However, those practicing in this "new field" had much invested in not even looking at that possibility.
At the same time, the problem of "recovered memories" (when false) had the effect of trivializing the very real and devastating experiences of that much smaller percentage of men and women who really were sexually victimized as children. In both cases, this odd burst of national hysteria harmed the innocent.
By "inside labels in psychology," I refer to any term that is either not immediately and readily understandable to an intelligent, educated person to whom it is applied, or that has no positive value to that person.
I know wonderful, caring, compassionate and articulate people on this board who have been quite discouraged by being told they have "borderline personality disorder" or "a potential latent schizo-affective disorder" or some such nonsense. They come here to ask, "What does this mean?" Worse, when they seek a second opinion from another practitioner, as often as not they receive a different label from the DSM IV or from the jargon of the practitioner's modality.
Did you read the note from Judy1 about her doctor saying she had "manic defenses"? I hardly know a finer person, more sensitive, intelligent, aware, and conscientiously working on herself while helping and supporting others here as well. I had to look it up. It's a simplistic theory that suggests some of us try to get out of our depression by running around madly. Well, duh! Exactly how does that help? For one thing, this "theory" had to be thought up by someone who never experienced mania.
Did you know I have "idiopathic hypersomnia"? Thank heavens for this brilliant diagnosis! I thought I was just overly sleepy without any obvious explanation.
Personality types and DSM IV classifications can be fun and interesting, but slapped on patients like a brand of personal defectiveness, they can also do great unnecessary harm.
I really think Anna Laura said it much more clearly than I can.
Thank you for asking for clarification.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
poster:Mark H.
thread:18403
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020214/msgs/18612.html