![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by pegasus on April 6, 2006, at 8:44:46
In reply to Absence of evidence/evidence of absence » special_k, posted by Racer on April 6, 2006, at 1:40:34
Hey, Racer, I think you should send your post to the people doing that research. Their write up sounds like they haven't really considered all of the complexity that you point out. And your comments are very well articulated.
What do you say? If you don't want to identify yourself, you could send it anonymously.
Just a thought.
peg
Posted by Tabitha on April 6, 2006, at 10:57:37
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by pegasus on April 6, 2006, at 8:44:46
Another thought-- isn't writing about the interior experience (feelings, memories) a fairly modern invention? From what little I remember of reading moldy old classics in school, I don't recall much if any attention to characters' inner experience.
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:30:51
In reply to Absence of evidence/evidence of absence » special_k, posted by Racer on April 6, 2006, at 1:40:34
> What you say is true, up to a point, but I think this is a very interesting line of research. Literature is one of the purist forms of contemporary social history, and concepts such as repressed memory would likely have shown up in literature if it was occurring. The fact that they haven't found evidence of repressed memory or selective amnesia in literature prior to 1800 might be quite quite telling.
the 'concepts' can't show up until they have been legitimated...can you find a case of a repressed belief before the 1800's (the time of freud?)
can you?
does that mean there weren't any such things as repressed beliefs before time of freud...
or does it mean that such things were alternatively described / not judged worthy of reporting on
?
how is this different?
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:31:59
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:30:51
can you find cases of H2O being reported on prior to the 1800's?
does that mean there wasn't any H2O prior to the 1800's?
how is this different?
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:32:27
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:31:59
how 'bout quantum indeterminacies?
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:33:56
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:32:27
aka:
metaphysics (what in fact there is)
is a seperate topic from
epistemology (what if anything we can know about it)lack of epistemological evidence doesn't have implications for metaphysics one way or the other...
maybe we are just stupid...
Posted by Racer on April 6, 2006, at 12:30:40
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:30:51
> >
>
> can you find a case of a repressed belief before the 1800's (the time of freud?)
>
>
> does that mean there weren't any such things as repressed beliefs before time of freud...
>Just a note: Freud was much later than these guys were talking about, early 20th century.
As far as whether or not repressed beliefs or repressed memories existed prior to the time they first showed up in literature, I wouldn't dare venture an opinion on that here. I was really only saying that it's an interesting question, and that there are a lot of variables which I believe might be involved.
Posted by pseudoname on April 6, 2006, at 17:28:30
In reply to Re: Absence of evidence/evidence of absence, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 11:33:56
Hey, _k.
(Rhymes) ;)
> can you find a case of a repressed belief before the 1800's (the time of freud?)
FREUD found cases of repression before his own time. He found them wherever he looked. He found them in Hamlet, who in addition to being pre-1800 probably didn't even exist. http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/bierman/Elsinore/Freud/freudRepression.html
> can you find cases of H2O being reported on prior to the 1800's?
> how 'bout quantum indeterminacies?
The McLean contest seeks reports of something bygone people could certainly see and describe perfectly well, even if they lacked a Freudian explanation for it. Ancient people talked about both remembering and forgetting; there are dozens of such references in the Bible, for example. An instance of such an unusual and provocative pattern of forgetting and remembering as the McLean researchers seek would be well within the capacity of ancient, medieval, renaissance, and enlightment writers to observe, distinguish as unusual, and report.
The absence of such reports would be noteworthy in this situation and could be *part* of a persuasive argument against recovered memory's metaphysical claims. Why don't I believe in UFOs? Absence of evidence for them where evidence can reasonably be expected is certainly part of my thinking.
I think Racer's suggestion about possible limitations in creating these reports back then is really interesting. But even if they were a minority, there were still plenty of people who had as much emotional free time as we do, and they were about the only folks *ever* written up in the literature back then: rich & powerful princes (like Hamlet and Oedipus), leaders, courtesans, and their families. I don't know how any balladeer or poet or historian or lyricist or storyteller could resist the saucy material and plot twists that an instance of recovered memory could provide, if they had ever heard of one.
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 20:36:01
In reply to Freud was 1900s... » special_k, posted by Racer on April 6, 2006, at 12:30:40
> Just a note: Freud was much later than these guys were talking about, early 20th century.
yeah, okay. though i think the notion of those concepts came up a bit before... he just managed to get 'em through to 'pop culture'
> As far as whether or not repressed beliefs or repressed memories existed prior to the time they first showed up in literature, I wouldn't dare venture an opinion on that here. I was really only saying that it's an interesting question, and that there are a lot of variables which I believe might be involved.sure. and i was interested to read what you had to say. (sorry if i sounded like i was disagreeing... i was just worried about the 'significance' of not managing to find anything)
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 20:44:29
In reply to Re: old memory » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 6, 2006, at 17:28:30
> FREUD found cases of repression before his own time. He found them wherever he looked.
tee hee.
> The McLean contest seeks reports of something bygone people could certainly see and describe perfectly well, even if they lacked a Freudian explanation for it. Ancient people talked about both remembering and forgetting; there are dozens of such references in the Bible, for example. An instance of such an unusual and provocative pattern of forgetting and remembering as the McLean researchers seek would be well within the capacity of ancient, medieval, renaissance, and enlightment writers to observe, distinguish as unusual, and report.
but you need to believe people before you would report it. how many cases of csa are reported prior to 1800? if the traumatic memories that are repressed are typically reports of csa then it would make sense that if society didn't acknowledge csa then even if someone did forget and then remember others (and perhaps even they themselves) would write it off as rubbish.
also... i don't think we tend to go around talking about traumatic memories with people we meet on the streets... not until the advent of therapy did people have a place where they would be listened to and taken seriously...
i just mean to say that there are a variety of reasons why there might not be records...
> The absence of such reports would be noteworthy in this situation and could be *part* of a persuasive argument against recovered memory's metaphysical claims. Why don't I believe in UFOs? Absence of evidence for them where evidence can reasonably be expected is certainly part of my thinking.
though i think the idea about ufo's is why posit a new entity when old entities will do the trick? with repressed memories... well... i think some people try and make a repressed memory / dissociated memory distinction though best i can figure dissociated memories would seem to fulfill their criteria as much as repressed memories would.
they are taking denial... to be the measure of repression. that means somebody needs to ask them about the trauma and they need to say 'no no no didn't happen to me' a fair bit... and then later to change their mind and say 'oh yeah i remember'. who would ask them? (before therapists)? repression was observed... dissociation was observed... and as for the rest... i don't think csa was talked about... and other traumas... maybe more focus on moving on...
Posted by pseudoname on April 6, 2006, at 22:50:05
In reply to Re: old memory » pseudoname, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 20:44:29
[**CONTENT WARNING: possible triggers**]
> how many cases of csa are reported prior to 1800?
Oh, good point! Very interesting. Well— except for those that were culturally sanctioned, like with catamites and child brides.
We do get stories of adult rape and both adult and child murder, so presumably when instances of CSA were known, they were deliberately never mentioned. Very interesting.
Interesting also that (I'm pretty sure) there's nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures about “lying with children”. They covered same-sex partners, so why not that? Surely *it* would really be “an abomination unto the Lord.”
Surely bygone-era writers would've known about it, or would've imagined it. And it could've juiced up their stories. We have lots of antique stories of children being beaten. Why not sexually abused? They reported versions of bestiality, after all.
The absence of CSA is interesting... Someone must've written papers about this.
Of course, as you say, there are other traumas that are considered triggers of repressed memory, many of which are events of the sort clearly reported in ancient literature. Murder, fires, adult rape, pillaging, kidnapping, plague, wholesale slaughter of towns, etc. If these events had triggered repressed memory, writing about their recovery would not have violated any taboos, as it might've with CSA memories.
It just doesn't seem like Shakespeare or any of his rivals or those opera guys could've kept themselves from using this device in the plot of at least one play if they had ever heard of it or had an inkling that it could happen. When you consider all the oracles and magic potions and ghosts and dei ex machinis that they did resort to...
Not all the repression currently reported is from early (say, pre-10) childhood, is it? I don't really know.
> they are taking denial... to be the measure of repression. that means somebody needs to ask them about the trauma and they need to say 'no no no didn't happen to me' a fair bit... and then later to change their mind and say 'oh yeah i remember'.
From the posting, I think the McLean folk would accept someone simply self-reporting that they did not remember it earlier but do remember it now. They just ask for someone who's
> been unable to access the memory
not someone whose previous denial was on record.
Posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 23:47:56
In reply to Re: ancient CSA » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 6, 2006, at 22:50:05
> > how many cases of csa are reported prior to 1800?
> Oh, good point! Very interesting. Well— except for those that were culturally sanctioned, like with catamites and child brides.ah... so... wasn't there any childhood sexual abuse (thinking more particularly of incest here) or...
was it something that society didn't look into / acknowledge / talk about...
?
i dont' think it is legitimate to infer from the lack of reports that it didnt' happen.
and ditto with the case of repressed memory, i guess.
re fiction... wouldn't incest have been a juicy topic for shakespeare etc too????? maybe it just wasnt' the done thing. and again... re memory of traumatic experiences... maybe a cultural thing of 'moving along now' did come into play. and so therapists (tell us your secrets) and delving into the past... well maybe that does get people thinking on it (and hence reporting it) whereas before... maybe the memories were never 'recovered' because the 'recovered memory' was thought (by the subject) to be fantasy... or maybe they just didn't want to talk about it (i mean why go through the pain unless there is a theory that going through the pain helps the pain long term?)
> We do get stories of adult rape and both adult and child murder, so presumably when instances of CSA were known, they were deliberately never mentioned. Very interesting.> The absence of CSA is interesting... Someone must've written papers about this.
i've head ian hacking's "multiple personality and the sciences of memory" and he talks about how definitions of 'abuse' have changed over time (now lots more acts are considered 'abuse' that would not be considered 'abuse' in the past. if you change the concept so more acts fall under it then the prevalence of abuse will go up...)
> Of course, as you say, there are other traumas that are considered triggers of repressed memory, many of which are events of the sort clearly reported in ancient literature. Murder, fires, adult rape, pillaging, kidnapping, plague, wholesale slaughter of towns, etc. If these events had triggered repressed memory, writing about their recovery would not have violated any taboos, as it might've with CSA memories.yes. that seems right. i would say absence of therapists and absence of belief in the utility of remembering could come into play quite significantly.
but i don't tink failure to find repressed memories
i don't think failure to find csa
means those things didn't occur.
just that they weren't talked about...hard to know... it is interesting topic... there is huge lit...
> Not all the repression currently reported is from early (say, pre-10) childhood, is it? I don't really know.
no. some from older. some from younger. lots of empirical support for notion that recovered memories before age 3 (i think) is rather dodgey...
> From the posting, I think the McLean folk would accept someone simply self-reporting that they did not remember it earlier but do remember it now. They just ask for someone who's
> > been unable to access the memory
> not someone whose previous denial was on record.how do they measure 'inability to access the memory'?
that is a very real problem...
if i do not remember...
is it because i cannot remember...
or because i choose not to remember...
and do i remember but deny it...
or not remember which is why i deny it...and how do you decide?
(that is a very real problem)
Posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 14:11:01
In reply to Re: ****trigger CSA / repressed memory****, posted by special_k on April 6, 2006, at 23:47:56
[**CONTENT WARNING: Incest, Child abuse **]
> re fiction... wouldn't incest have been a juicy topic for shakespeare etc too?????
Yeah! And Shakespeare used it in ‘Pericles’, where the king and his marriage-age daughter are having sexual relations. (“Bad child! Worse father!”) Eventually the gods send fire from heaven to burn up both of them for what they were doing, and the outraged populace storms the palace.
> > The absence of CSA is interesting... Someone must've written papers about this.
>
> i've read ian hacking's "multiple personality and the sciences of memory" and he talks about how definitions of 'abuse' have changed over time [...]I've found a couple papers that appear to document ancient & medieval reports of CSA, but they're in proprietary journals. I'm really interested in this now, so I may have to look them up in 2 weeks when I visit my dentist. (She's in a big university town.)
Your point about changing definitions is important. I think the plethora of reports in sources like Catullus (I was a Latin major for a while…) of catamites –boys routinely sodomized by older men– is significant. The dominant literate culture didn't call it abuse, for the most part, but it was certainly reported. And there are catamite accusations in medieval times, too, when it was regarded as sinful: more an offense against God than against the child.
So we really do have historic accounts of CSA, once we make cultural adjustments to recognize it. Nevertheless, you point out that incestuous CSA was apparently not reported, at least with young children. (There are reports of incest with slightly older girls, like in ‘Pericles’.) Perhaps even if an ancient woman recovered memories of her incestuous CSA, it wouldn't get reported any better than if it had been discovered while it was going on.
It seems to be the case that incestuous CSA is the most common recovered-memory accusation. Perhaps the ancient silence about early-childhood incest would rule out the most common modern type of recovered memory from being historically reported, even if it occurred. I think that is a point worth making, but reports of other instances of recovered memory could still be expected.
> maybe the memories were never 'recovered' because the 'recovered memory' was thought (by the subject) to be fantasy
That's an interesting idea! I like it. But people back then assumed that gods (and God) gave them authentic visions, so it seems less likely to me that they would dismiss much as “fantasy”. It was a credulous era.
> maybe they just didn't want to talk about it (i mean why go through the pain unless there is a theory that going through the pain helps the pain long term?)
That, too, is an interesting point. I wonder if there was any assumption of “talking through it” in the Victorian literature where recovered memory does occur? I've never read ‘Captains Courageous’ (1896), the story Pope/Hudson cite in which the kid recovers the memory of his family drowning. Perhaps there was some assumption in it of talking through the pain.
> i would say absence of therapists and absence of belief in the utility of remembering could come into play quite significantly.
I think the McLean guys would agree. They would just suggest that the “belief in the utility of remembering” may *cause* the memories, not simply make them seem more important.
> how do they measure 'inability to access the memory'?
> that is a very real problem...It doesn't seem like a problem for this contest. It really sounds like any self-report by someone who claims to have recovered a traumatic memory they previously didn't know about would suffice. They accept, for example, the ones in Victorian literature.
I may have to read ‘Captains Courageous’ now.
Always nice to chat with you, _k.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 7, 2006, at 16:09:03
In reply to historic CSA *trigger* » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 14:11:01
I seem to recall this began in earnest as a tool for understanding the psyche around
(Okay, I'm looking at my old textbook right now) ;)
St. Augustine used introspection in developing his "Confessions", although I don't believe he labelled it as such. This was around the late 2nd century, into early 3rd century.
Montaigne (1533-1592) is known for his introspective "Essays", in which he tried to understand life and hiw world from a more pragmatic, human point of view versus using the religious beliefs of the day or metaphysical beliefs.
And probably the most well-known in psychology for using introspection as a research device are Wundt and and more formally, Titchener in the late 17th century into the 18th century.
Just to give some time frames for the development of the use of introspection...Thanks to "A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context" by Viney and King.
Eek, and now I may have to go take cover in the basement.
gg
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 19:38:03
In reply to historic CSA *trigger* » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 14:11:01
> Yeah! And Shakespeare used it in ‘Pericles’, where the king and his marriage-age daughter are having sexual relations. (“Bad child! Worse father!”) Eventually the gods send fire from heaven to burn up both of them for what they were doing, and the outraged populace storms the palace.hmm. there is some religious figure... mebee has the status of a god... his bride was 11 or 12 i think. but that wasn't considered abuse. i guess it was the done thing back whenever. but interesting that in shakespeare it was frowned upon... mind you the former wasn't incest (thats why i guess i got to thinking about incest in particular - and kids in particular too). they used to think that incest was a universally frowned upon thing. but then they found a small tribe that didn't have a problem with it. but apparantly the tribe was so small that if they had have had a problem with it the tribe would have died out long ago (they were isolated too). i wonder how many tribes died out BECAUSE of norms around incest though...
> Your point about changing definitions is important.(Hacking's point...)
> I think the plethora of reports in sources like Catullus (I was a Latin major for a while…) of catamites –boys routinely sodomized by older men– is significant. The dominant literate culture didn't call it abuse, for the most part, but it was certainly reported. And there are catamite accusations in medieval times, too, when it was regarded as sinful: more an offense against God than against the child.
ah. ancient greeks used to sleep with the young men too. i don't know how young 'young' was. but then i think the average lifespan back in ancient greece was around 45 or something like that. maybe even less. and i guess the marrying age (for girls) would be around sexual maturity (i'm thinking 13 or so 'cause it used to take a bit longer for girls than it does now). so i don't know how old the boys were. but that wasn't considered abusive back then...
> So we really do have historic accounts of CSA, once we make cultural adjustments to recognize it.meebe. if the same act happened in our culture we would classify it as abusive. and the person would feel traumatised from being abused no doubt. back then... well hacking talks a bit about how it might be being culturally insensitive to consider those acts abusive in retrospect. when they happened they were embraced as part of a culture. if it is accepted by culture / society (as it was) then maybe the people don't feel traumatised the way they tend to now. talking about consent i guess. not against someones will (which has gotta be traumatic). i dunno...
> Nevertheless, you point out that incestuous CSA was apparently not reported, at least with young children.
i actually have no idea. i asked it as a question. i have no idea. but i wondered if the biggest thing behind the reports of abuse is that those acts are considered abusive and traumatic in our culture. i don't know.
> Perhaps even if an ancient woman recovered memories of her incestuous CSA, it wouldn't get reported any better than if it had been discovered while it was going on.
yeah.
> It seems to be the case that incestuous CSA is the most common recovered-memory accusation.yep.
> Perhaps the ancient silence about early-childhood incest would rule out the most common modern type of recovered memory from being historically reported, even if it occurred.
yep. and there is also hackings point that it might not have been experienced as traumatic (or if it was then people might just rubbish it)
> I think that is a point worth making, but reports of other instances of recovered memory could still be expected.
mebee... or mebee not...
> That's an interesting idea! I like it. But people back then assumed that gods (and God) gave them authentic visions, so it seems less likely to me that they would dismiss much as “fantasy”. It was a credulous era.but the visions are about future events or past events of monumental significance... not about visions of what happened to them as a child... (interesting to note that the visionaries... might have history of trauma / epilepsy...)
> > maybe they just didn't want to talk about it (i mean why go through the pain unless there is a theory that going through the pain helps the pain long term?)
> That, too, is an interesting point. I wonder if there was any assumption of “talking through it” in the Victorian literature where recovered memory does occur?that is part of the 'recovered memory' idea!!!! recovered memories... are part of the carthartic method. to remember previously forgotten (repressed? / forgotten? /) traumatic experiences and to reexperience the emotions and hey presto you are cured! the idea is you need to recover memories of trauma... and you need to talk through / experience again those memories / feelings associated with the trauma... and then you are cured.
that seems to be the very notion these people are investigating... whether people 'remember' trauma because they are told by enthusiastic therapists that OF COURSE there is something traumatic and OF COURSE these ideas / dreams / represent veridical experiences in their past (and hence are recovered memroies) and moreover that you HAVE to do this in order to get better.
and hey presto people start 'recovering memroies' left right and centre. i have no problem with the idea that repressed memroies are more prevalant after having been encouraged along by overenthusiastic therapists / clients.
i just think that it would be very strange indeed if there hadn't been the odd case occuring prior...
> > i would say absence of therapists and absence of belief in the utility of remembering could come into play quite significantly.
> I think the McLean guys would agree. They would just suggest that the “belief in the utility of remembering” may *cause* the memories, not simply make them seem more important.yeah. i tell the story a little like this...
a therapist suggests a client will never be free of her pains unless she reveals her secrets (yup freud used to put it fairly much like this)
and so the client wants to get better of course... doesn't want to be resistent... so they get to trying to remember... and because they are thinking on it a great deal...
they start getting mental pictures / dreams about it etc.
and then (because of the theory) therapist and client both come to believe the mental pictures / dreams are MEMORIES that are VERIDICAL (ie faithful to events) and hey presto the repressed memory is born!and then the interesting thing is that freud realised after a while that what people were 'remembering' couldn't possibly be true... so he decided people were imagining things after all.
but he failed to distinguish between people who fairly much never forgot (just didn't want to talk about it for a while then volounteered the info off their own bat)
and the people who he had 'coaxed along'. and thus he failed to distinguish and reach the more moderate conclusion that SOME reports are fairly much accurate (as accurate as any memory can be) and that OTHER reports are not (and he failed to see how his LEADING THE CLIENT ALONG contributed to that).but now things are so much more complicated because repressed memories have become part of pop culture. you can get pop culture books that ask if you have the following non descript symptoms... and they tell you that on the basis of those non descript symptoms you are probably the victim of sexual abuse but you have repressed all knowledge of it. very irresponsible. but people get to thinking on it and hey presto a 'repressed memory' is born. so people do it to themselves these days too, they don't need a therapist to do it... and nowdays the process tends to be more subtle (especially amongst health professionals as opposed to well intentioned peoples with minimal training).
but it is a tricky one... a healthy amount of scepticism is probably wise.
but i think these maclean people are trying to dig for the deeper (stronger) point they seem to be trying to get the conclusion that NO REPRESSED MEMORIES ARE VERIDICAL and that the whole shebang is a therapist invention.
so my thing is...
if someone denys abuse ('cause they are too ashamed to admit to it lets say)
if they persistently deny it for a few years
(which seems to count as forgetting in the way they define forgetting)
then they admit to it...
that might just count as a 'repressed memory'
i don't know that we can distinguish...
and i would say that this type of memory... is likely to be veridical as any memory can be.
> > how do they measure 'inability to access the memory'?
> > that is a very real problem...> It doesn't seem like a problem for this contest. It really sounds like any self-report by someone who claims to have recovered a traumatic memory they previously didn't know about would suffice.
do you have to say 'i forgot then i remembered'
or can it go like this:
have you been abused 'no'
have you been abused 'no'
have you been abused 'yes'
why doesn't that count (read their def. again. or maybe i'm missing something)and so now my point is that who goes around asking 'have you been abused' all the time untill the event of therapists? i mean... must be rare for the question to even come up... an dnot until therapists did people persist with the question (to get a different answer next time around)
> They accept, for example, the ones in Victorian literature.
but that is so theory laden... the point is what form did the phenomenon take (if there is a comperable phenomenon BEFORE the theory)
and my point is that...
its form would of course be different.
i dunno. maybe i agree with these maclean people...
i guess my main concern is that...
IMO we need a middle way between post traumatic models of disorders (where trauma is a cause by definition and hey presto repressed memories are present) and the false memory foundation where they claim that ALL recovered memories are false.
if 'no no no yes' in response to the question counts as a recovered memory (by the false memory foundation) then i don't buy that... i don't.
politics...
sigh.
> Always nice to chat with you, _k.thanks.
yo utoo :-)
Posted by special_k on April 7, 2006, at 19:58:10
In reply to $1000 pre-1800 repressed memory prize, posted by pseudoname on April 5, 2006, at 13:36:06
i guess i think...
people would forget.
but not remember until the event of therapy most probably.
but that doesn't mean recovered memories are false... it could mean that therapists help people remember whereas they couldn't remember off their own bat (hence therapy is jolly helpful really)- especially if remembering the trauma and working through it is in fact what people need to get better (as the theory maintains)
Posted by harrisonpope on April 20, 2006, at 13:08:40
In reply to historic CSA *trigger* » special_k, posted by pseudoname on April 7, 2006, at 14:11:01
Hello-
In response to some of your comments in the thread:
Natural human psychological phenomena, such as delusions, hallucinations, depression, anxiety, and dementia, have been portrayed in countless written works throughout the ages. Therefore, if "dissociative amnesia" were also a natural psychological phenomenon, then it also should appear in written works throughout history.
Is it plausible that dissociative amnesia has always existed, but for some reason was never explicitly portrayed in written works prior to 1800? This is NOT plausible. The mental experiences of human beings are the very stuff of literature; written works throughout history have consistently depicted mental phenomena of every variety. Shakespeare alone, or Greek tragedy alone, or the Bible alone, provides an encyclopedic enumeration of human psychological states. Similarly, nonfictional works, such as medical and philosophical texts throughout the ages, catalog human mental phenomena in detail. Why would dissociative amnesia not be included? Indeed, if dissociative amnesia can afflict as many as 30% of trauma victims, as some reviews have suggested, and if we consider that hundreds of millions of people have lived their lives in literate societies throughout the centuries prior to 1800, then millions of cases would presumably have occurred throughout history. That no one, anywhere, would have noticed a case, and described that case in a nonfictional work or a fictional character, over the course of 20 or 30 centuries, strains credibility.
A corollary to the above hypothesis, also deserving consideration, asserts that dissociative amnesia is indeed suggested in various writings prior to 1800, but that our ancestors might have visualized, interpreted, and described psychological phenomena differently from ourselves. For example, people in earlier centuries might have witnessed dissociative amnesia, but portrayed it as demonic possession or some other supernatural event, or described it in language entirely different from what we would use today. Certainly this may be true – but DISSOCIATIVE AMNESIA IS A VERY GRAPHIC AND STRIKING PHENOMENON; IF AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEOUSLY DEVELOPS COMPLETE AMNESIA FOR A SPECIFIC, SEEMINGLY UNFORGETTABLE, TRAUMATIC EVENT, THEN A DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A CASE WOULD SURELY BE RECOGNIZABLE, EVEN THROUGH A DENSE VEIL OF CULTURAL INTERPRETATION.
Another possible hypothesis is that dissociative amnesia exists, but did not come into existence until after 1800. By analogy, AIDS, and the theory of relativity, did not exist two centuries ago. But these are not valid analogies, because phenomena caused by innate intrapsychic processes, such as psychosis, depression, anxiety, or dementia, occur in all cultures across history. Dissociative amnesia falls in this latter category; in other words, if the brain were inherently capable of spontaneously developing amnesia for a traumatic event, then the brain of an individual in classical Greece, or 18th-century England, or Tang Dynasty China, would possess the same capability as the brain of a modern individual, and therefore dissociative amnesia would have found its way into the written word centuries earlier.If you feel that you can rebut any of my arguments above, please do not hesitate to reply. Thank you all for your interest.
Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D.
Posted by pseudoname on April 20, 2006, at 14:00:29
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger*, posted by harrisonpope on April 20, 2006, at 13:08:40
Dr Pope, thanks for taking an interest in our thread and taking the time to post at length here.
This is not a rebuttal to your points, but a question about something you didn't address.
As I finally understood it, the argument several people were trying to get through to me is that (in my words) the *technology* for recovering allegedly repressed memories did not exist until the development of introspective psychotherapy and hypnosis.
It is true, as you say, that we would still expect instances of dissociative amnesia to be reported in historic literature, if it is a real process, even if the victim never recovered his own memory of the trauma. But your contest ALSO demands that the historic report indicate that the memory was RECOVERED later (requirement #4).
If recovery requires techniques developed or popularized since 1800 (by Mesmerists or Freud or whatever), then RECOVERY would not be expected in the old literature, even if reports of REPRESSION still would be.
If you doubt that even repression alone was ever historically reported, why do you have that extra requirement for RECOVERY of the memory? And since you do, I wonder how you reply to those who say that the technology for recovery was not available before the 1800s.
Thanks again.
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:11:20
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger*, posted by harrisonpope on April 20, 2006, at 13:08:40
> Natural human psychological phenomena, such as delusions, hallucinations, depression, anxiety, and dementia, have been portrayed in countless written works throughout the ages. Therefore, if "dissociative amnesia" were also a natural psychological phenomenon, then it also should appear in written works throughout history.
> Is it plausible that dissociative amnesia has always existed, but for some reason was never explicitly portrayed in written works prior to 1800? This is NOT plausible.'The historian of psychiatry Edward Shorter (1997)... Agrees with the more constructionist-minded historians that schizophrenia was virtually unknown before the late 18th century...'.
Murphy, Dominic (2001) Hacking's Reconciliation: Putting the Biological and Sociological Together in the Explanation of Mental Illness.
> If you feel that you can rebut any of my arguments above, please do not hesitate to reply.We kinda did if you bothered to read the thread...
I haven't checked out the schizophrenia claim. It would seem to me, however, that if schizophrenia is similarly not reported prior to the 1800's that you would have shown amnesia to be... Similar to schizophrenia.
Well done :-)
Posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 12:22:05
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger* » harrisonpope, posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:11:20
The term "schizophrenia" isn't in the literature because it was invented in the 19th c. This doesn't mean that clusters of symptoms, or behaviors, later categorized as schizophrenia weren't mentioned.
These things may have been conceptualized differently, and one can argue about whether better or worse, but it's harder to argue that what we would call "madness" did not exist.
Even Foucault would have acknowledged that various manifestations later called madness existed--
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 20:44:01
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger* » Estella, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 12:22:05
> The term "schizophrenia" isn't in the literature because it was invented in the 19th c. This doesn't mean that clusters of symptoms, or behaviors, later categorized as schizophrenia weren't mentioned.
Yeah, I hear what you are saying, but it is also controversial that the clusters of symptoms (that were later named 'schizophrenia') were reported prior to the 1800's. There have been some reports... But I'm not sure that they are completely uncontroversial.
For example:
> it's harder to argue that what we would call "madness" did not exist.
though some have.
apparantly there are indeed reports of depression, mania, delusions, hallucinations prior to the 1800's. A lot of people who would be considered 'mad' were they to live in western culture aren't considered 'mad' in their own. though psychiatry is spreading around the globe, of course.
All I'm getting at is that IF that is right and there isn't an uncontroversial case of schizophrenia (though it doesn't have to be called that) prior to the 1800's THEN I'm wondering how Harrison Pope would respond to that. Seems he has two choices:
1) He can appropriate his arguments for repressed memory and say that failure to find a case means the disorder never existed. Schizophrenia must be a clinician's invention by his lights.
(Though of course that doesn't follow. One idea is that schizophrenia hasn't been reported prior to 1800 because it is the result of some virus or pathogen that became prevalent during the industrial revolution. Maybe there is a similar explanation for recovered memories?)
2) Failure to find a case doesn't mean that the symptom / disorder is bollicks. I mean... Money is a fairly recent invention in the history of the world... It is universal now, but needed a niche in order to become prevalent.
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real or legitimate.
Failure to find a case doesn't entail that there weren't any. With respect to providing good support... One could make a comperable case for schizophrenia.
I don't think the authors want to do this...
Do they?
Posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 20:55:44
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger*, posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 20:44:01
I'll read the harrisonpope statement.prize offer later, but from a glance, it seems their problem is with the "repressed memory" people, which is quite separate from the issue of madness or schizophrenia.
I'm not that knowledgeable about the history of mental illness, although I've looked at a few things, like Edward Shorter. I'd have to do a little research to say more. I know very little about the repressed memory debate of the last 15-20 years, except that it seems to be related to cases of mass hysteria, and fairly high suggestibility.
Wonder about he Salem witch trials, although the records for exactly what was going on there are a bit confusing, from what I know.
But I'm not inclined to try to argue for repressed memory, because while there are undoubtedly gaps in memory, I'm not sure I believe that trauma can cause whole sections of memory to be lost, except in very rare cases. There might be rare cases. Whether they surfaced before 1800? I suspect if you looked through enough sources you could find something.
Whether you could find it easily, or how you'd make the argument for its being an instance, I don't know.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger* » Estella, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 20:55:44
> I'll read the harrisonpope statement.prize offer later, but from a glance, it seems their problem is with the "repressed memory" people, which is quite separate from the issue of madness or schizophrenia.
Right. But their argument seems to go a little like this: Can't find a care therefore phenomena is not a 'natural human phenomnea' therfore phenomena is bogus. All I'm saying is that some people seem to think that it is hard to find an uncontroversial case of schizophrenic symptoms prior to 1800 hence according to their argument...
The notion is to show that their argument doesn't work by analogy...
Or they could of course conclude that their argument is fine and hence whatever conclusions they want to draw about the social construction of repressed memories would also (probably) apply to the social construction of schizophrenia.
Posted by Racer on August 21, 2006, at 9:50:28
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger*, posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 22:36:25
> > All I'm saying is that some people seem to think that it is hard to find an uncontroversial case of schizophrenic symptoms prior to 1800 hence according to their argument...
>
>
>
> Or they could of course conclude that their argument is fine and hence whatever conclusions they want to draw about the social construction of repressed memories would also (probably) apply to the social construction of schizophrenia.
>
>
>
>This actually came up in my cultural anthro class lo those many years ago. (As in, when the earth's crust was still cooling -- or twenty-mumble years back.) My Anthro prof -- whom I really respected and liked, and who had done a LOT of field work in South American Indian village societies -- brought up the 'shaman' tradition, and described many attributes of the typical shaman. (I'm just using that word since it's pretty recognizeable. I'm talking about the village spiritual leader, the mystical visionary, however you'd describe him. Oh, yeah, sometimes female, more usually male.) He gave most of his lecture, with all of us scribbling like mad, before finally asking us, "And does this sound familiar to any of you?" No one had an answer. Lots of blank faces turned towards him.
He said, "These cultures had a job for the mentally ill," and went on to describe what very well may have been schizophrenia, but couched in more positive terms. The delusions as the gods speaking through the shaman, but more importantly -- someone who probably wouldn't be able to care for him/herself, someone who probably wouldn't be able to be a productive member of the society in the way a mentally healthy person would, someone who might not have survived in the "civilized" world through most of history, that person had a position of prestige in the society which included having other people provide food, shelter, and the other needs of survival.
So it's entirely possible that schizophrenics have existed for millenium, but be difficult to detect, because the symptomology was described in positive terms.
Regardless -- schizophrenia and repressed/recovered memories are different phenomena, and this thread started out as being about the latter, not the former. So, going back to the latter...
I, personally, am not a disbeliever in repressed memory, although I do believe that where it exists it's quite rare. I don't much believe, though, in recovered memory. If repressed memory exists, it's surely possible that some people recover those memories. But the sorts of cases of recovered memory that I've read about lack any sort of credible evidence. There's too much evidence, to my mind, of manipulation on the part of therapists 'treating' those individuals. (Manipulation in the neutral sense, of molding the reports, probably unconsciously or inadvertantly.)
The book "Satanism in America: How The Devil Got Much More Than His Due" talks about the numbers involved in the one area of satanic ritual abuse of children -- the reports show that more children would have to have been killed in this country during the past thirty years than were actually born! Reports like that get my skepticism up. (Even if I can't spell it. "Scepticism?")
OK, I'm done now. I couldn't sleep last night, know I'm not making much in the way of sense...
We're all free to believe what we believe. I'm only sharing what I believe, and a little about why. This is in no way a criticism of anyone with opposing beliefs.
Peace, love, and recycle, Everyone!
Posted by Estella on August 22, 2006, at 22:39:48
In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger*, posted by Racer on August 21, 2006, at 9:50:28
Hey. Yeah I'd heard about shamen (and witches and so forth) as people who were 'mad' before the concept of 'madness' became medicalised. Some people think that that is how mental illness expressed itself, others think that mental illness has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what I think, I haven't read around the issue very much. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle etc.
I guess one thing it is important to bear in mind is that while to many people schizophrenia = madness it isn't that simple. Schizophrenia is a particular type of 'madness' (though i'm not particularly fond of the term madness). One could hold that there was madness before the 1800's while still maintaining that schizophrenia didn't exist before the 1800's. Apparantly depression and bi-polar have a long history of documentation...
What the anthro guy was saying is... Very controversial. I mean, it is a major theory, yes. Like maintaining that witches were hysterics or epileptics. But there are other major theories too.
> He said, "These cultures had a job for the mentally ill,"... that person had a position of prestige in the society which included having other people provide food, shelter, and the other needs of survival.
Then it can't be schizophrenia because it doesn't even meet DSM criteria for a mental illness. Remember the blurb in the DSM about how in order to have mental illness one must be socially etc impaired. These people don't seem impared in their functioning so much as superior.
One could view it as a pre-cursor to schizophrenia.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.