![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by James K on January 3, 2006, at 21:57:32
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » alexandra_k, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 21:44:28
Posted by JenStar on January 3, 2006, at 22:55:20
In reply to A new therapeutic technique!?, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 20:52:31
this is interesting, but also kind of scary to me. I'm not sure I'd want a false memory implanted, even if it helped me lose weight (which I sorely want and need to do!)
I don't like the idea of having false memories. Even though I'm sure that many of my "true" memories have been tainted by time and wishful thinking and creative past reconstruction and all that, I wouldn't want to deliberately put a false one in there!
But I do believe that many people come to believe false or incorrect things through the power of suggestion - their own and that of therapists, couselors, etc. This is probably a REALLY inflammatory thing to say, but I wonder what percentage of people who say they've been molested by a Catholic priest really WERE molested, and how many are making it up, and how many just THINK they were? But the truth is, I think -- that like alien abductions -- people are somehow getting false memories of events that may not have happened.
But this is interesting, Fires. I would like to read more on it.
thanks,
JenStar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 3, 2006, at 23:06:37
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » alexandra_k, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 21:44:28
> The report mentioned in Health was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I haven't found the report online.
The first link here is the Proceedings article, the second the full-text of your first link. I'm not sure which one you were looking for.
https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/PNASStrawberryPrinted05.pdf?uniq=ynn4o
https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/bernsteinSocialCognition05.pdf?uniq=-g02nr5
Maybe all her work is here, full-text:
http://www.seweb.uci.edu/faculty/loftus/Here's a tip for finding full-text versions of papers. Copy the entire title into Google, in quotation marks. "..."
If it's out there, Google will find it. 3rd link?
Lar
Posted by daisym on January 3, 2006, at 23:12:10
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » fires, posted by JenStar on January 3, 2006, at 22:55:20
"This is probably a REALLY inflammatory thing to say, but I wonder what percentage of people who say they've been molested by a Catholic priest really WERE molested, and how many are making it up, and how many just THINK they were? But the truth is, I think -- that like alien abductions -- people are somehow getting false memories of events that may not have happened."
Yup -- totally inflammatory-- and I know better than to engage in this debate. So all I'll say is that memories of abuse cause such tremendous pain, shame, fear and physical illness, why on earth would anyone hang on to a "false" memory of this type? Comparing this to alien abductions feels a little like saying one must be crazy to have these kinds of memories. I know that isn't what was meant but I hardly think they belong in the same category.Thanks for letting me speak up.
--an admittedly touchy Daisy
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:23:51
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » alexandra_k, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 21:44:28
> Strawberry ice cream was used in another study.
yeah well i never liked strawberry ice cream all that much anyways and why have strawberry when you can have chocolate ;-)
> "We need to test whether the effects are long lasting," warns psychologist Elizabeth Loftus ..."
heh heh.
> Why not? It worked with strawberry ice cream.for how long?
5 minutes ;-)
> It has worked in other ways. Patients cling to false memories of satanic ritual abuse, incest, date rape, etc...In SOME instances... Yes they do. I wonder whether there might be a psychological motivation for that that might be a different mechanism than the motivation involved in retaining food preferences (where nausea is fairly 'primitive' and does have strong power to change food preferences)
Seems to me that would be harder to do then believing that a food made one ill.
psychological motivation may make all the difference in the world...
> > secondly with the ethics of implanting false beliefs
> Depends on the reason for doing so ?If you are a utilitarian yes.
If you are a Kantian no.> What if serial rapists could be implanted with memories that the act of committing rape made them *seriously* ill.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:26:59
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » fires, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:23:51
I've only seen the movie...
But if you are a little squeemish the book might be better...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:31:52
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!?, posted by daisym on January 3, 2006, at 23:12:10
> all I'll say is that memories of abuse cause such tremendous pain, shame, fear and physical illness, why on earth would anyone hang on to a "false" memory of this type?
I would imagine... That false memories of abuse also cause tremendous pain, shame, fear, and physical illness.
As for *why* IMO... Some people come to believe... That there must be extreme abuse in their history because therapists, and other members of society lead them to believe this must be the case.
In the words of Freud (well... My reconstruction)
'I told her that I knew something had happened to her and if she continued to deny it she would never be freed from her pains and in this way my verbal pressure never ceased in its effect'
ie... confabulations...
It does happen.
Which is not at all to imply that it happened in your case, or in anyones case here... But it is a fact that it does happen in some cases.
That is why... Therapists learned to be careful with hypnosis / suggestion.
Well... Some of them at any rate.
> Thanks for letting me speak up.
> --an admittedly touchy Daisy(((((Daisy)))))
Posted by James K on January 3, 2006, at 23:44:59
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » daisym, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:31:52
False memories can be implanted that has been proven. An irresponsible or ill-trained therapist can make a mistake. There was a big scandal here in Houston in the 90's.
But child sex rings that use trappings of satanism have also been proved. And many priest stories are not recovered memories, but always remembered. Some priests have admitted.
Jon Allen (of Menninger) in his book "Coping With Trauma", is of the opinion that it is more important to deal with the symptoms and the patients version of reality than to go back looking for abuse that might have happened or disproving abuse that might not have.
It's about getting healthy in the now.
James_k (maybe we are related alexandra)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 23:49:57
In reply to False memory syndrome, posted by James K on January 3, 2006, at 23:44:59
> Jon Allen (of Menninger) in his book "Coping With Trauma", is of the opinion that it is more important to deal with the symptoms and the patients version of reality than to go back looking for abuse that might have happened or disproving abuse that might not have.
yeah.
and my opinion... is that that is what is wrong with the 'post-traumatic model' of DID. That it makes 'trauma of an objectively sickening severity' a CAUSAL factor in the aetiology of the disorder.
And the danger with that...
Is that clients and therapists both may come to the conclusion that it is the ONLY explanation for their present symptoms...
> It's about getting healthy in the now.yup.
There is also Ian Hacking's "Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory"
> James_k (maybe we are related alexandra)
Maybe ;-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 6:10:26
In reply to A new therapeutic technique!?, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 20:52:31
> Planted memories (false memories) put to good use?
You have a predilection for discussing the issue of the reliability of memory. Maybe you told me once, but I don't remember why. It's my Achilles heel, trying to keep individual characteristics properly attributed to their rightful personalities. There's an undercurrent of emotion there, and I don't want to naively aggravate or seem confrontational.
One sentence, what's up? Thanks.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 7:38:59
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » alexandra_k, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 21:44:28
> So many questions, so little time.
>
>
> > they were put off their hard boiled egg / dill pickle?
>
> Strawberry ice cream was used in another study.
> The report mentioned in Health was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I haven't found the report online.I just read the "strawberry ice cream" study, and I have some methodological concerns, to begin with. And some comments, in general.
Here's the link again:
https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/PNASStrawberryPrinted05.pdf?uniq=ynn4oFirst, I was really put off by how many times the authors emphasized "fattening" foods in the discussion of this study. As both foods tested were fattening (I suppose) the variable is controlled. It is therefore irrelevant in drawing conclusions. Because the variable was controlled, but the results differed for the two foods on 2 out of 3 post-test measures, what they have in fact shown is that the concept of "fattening" is not relevant to the implantation of false food-related memories. Moreover, their failure to induce food avoidance in the cookie arm/Party Behaviour Questionnaire raises questions about the method's effectiveness and generalizability.
Also, if you look at the average pretest scores for the sub-groups the experimenters termed "believers" (a post hoc analysis, i.e. data mining, to begin with) you'll see that their scores were already different from the non-believers and controls. They should have tested to see if the sub-groups were significantly different, in the first place. They seem to be different before the manipulation occurred. That should have been ruled out. If they were different, the manipulation may be meaningless, because it cannot be shown that the effect doesn't arise only in a sub-population.
Do you notice what's missing from the results section? They give percentages for implantation of false memories. They give changes in mean score for food avoidance, and their significance, but not the percentage of participants who actually did respond by newly avoiding the ice cream. Three really intense changes can shift a mean score significantly with that subject pool size. What was the effectiveness of this study? How many people avoided the ice cream (did all believers avoid?)? What percentage of all manipulated subjects actually avoided the food? They don't even tell us. (I bet it's because the numbers weren't very large.)
They don't say how many people they got to *hypothetically* avoid this food in this *short-term* study. They didn't actually even offer them ice cream. They could have tested the same subjects again a month later. But they did neither. This was a thought experiment, covering one week, using university students, taking a course for credit.
So, in the end, this study is suggestive, at best. Some people may possibly have their food selections manipulated by false memories. But how are you ever going to make that work in real life. False memories for every food there is? How do you reinforce those false memories once you've implanted them?
Far too much being made of far too little, IMHO.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 8:31:03
In reply to A new therapeutic technique!?, posted by fires on January 3, 2006, at 20:52:31
> Now she and others have shown: "...that adults can be led to believe falsely that eating certain foods as children made them sick and that such false beliefs can have consequences."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ctt9k
>
> There's speculation that the above could be useful in diet modification, including that for weight loss.https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/bernsteinSocialCognition05.pdf?uniq=-g02nr5
Again, I'm not impressed. The percentage of respondents to the manipulation is quite low. Moreover, there are significant issues around the inability to exclude truthful recall of actual memories induced by the repeated questionnaire technique, as well as response to demand. As both of these confounds serve to increase the percentage responding, the technique is certainly not very effective. The authors claimed "marginal significance" for non-significant results, as it is.
Food avoidance is a limbic response. It has been shown to exist in unconscious subjects. I have an interest in the subject because I have an "irrational" food aversion. The smell of bananas (fresh, not cooked) is enough to make me gag. I've got it down to gagging. Earlier responses were, uhhh, more productive.
I discussed the subject with one of my professors after it came up in lecture. He had taken part, as a student, in a study of what we call Antabuse (disulfiram). Before it could be used on the public, it had to be tested. Antabuse causes violent vomiting after even trace exposure to alcohol.
This gentleman enrolled in the study, thinking he'd get some free booze. Maybe he'd be in the control group, eh? Thinking he'd enhance the potential prize even further, he asked for scotch, his favourite tipple. Well, he was in the disulfiram group, and he was sick for over 24 hours. To his dismay, the smell of scotch was enough to cause him to vomit, even after the drug had worn off. When I spoke to him, it was nearly 40 years later, and he still could not drink scotch.
It turns out that food aversion is mediated by aroma. I discovered that when I was unlucky enough to have banana oil as the product of a laboratory chemistry exam. Given a synthetic procedure, our grade was based in part on identifying the substance so synthesized. I identified my product all right, and projectile vomited across the room to emphasize the point.
I must have been very very sick after eating a banana as an infant. Did I choke on it (like on a hotdog chunk)? Was I fed banana when my stomach was not accepting any food? Who knows. I can eat cooked bananas. They smell different.
Back to these thought experiments. Aversion. Avoidance. I dunno. I don't know what they've shown here. It would be interesting to know if a single one of the subjects changed their actual food selections, rather than marks on a checklist.
Lar
Posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 11:08:26
In reply to Re: full-text links » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on January 3, 2006, at 23:06:37
> > The report mentioned in Health was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I haven't found the report online.
>
> The first link here is the Proceedings article, the second the full-text of your first link. I'm not sure which one you were looking for.
>
> https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/PNASStrawberryPrinted05.pdf?uniq=ynn4o
>
> https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/bernsteinSocialCognition05.pdf?uniq=-g02nr5
>
> Maybe all her work is here, full-text:
> http://www.seweb.uci.edu/faculty/loftus/
>
> Here's a tip for finding full-text versions of papers. Copy the entire title into Google, in quotation marks. "..."
>
> If it's out there, Google will find it. 3rd link?
>
> Lar
>Thanks for the links. I've used "..." a lot with Google, but never for titles. Usually names of people or phrases.
I hope I can find the time to read the reports later today.
Posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 11:41:01
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 6:10:26
> > Planted memories (false memories) put to good use?
>
> You have a predilection for discussing the issue of the reliability of memory. Maybe you told me once, but I don't remember why. It's my Achilles heel, trying to keep individual characteristics properly attributed to their rightful personalities. There's an undercurrent of emotion there, and I don't want to naively aggravate or seem confrontational.
>
> One sentence, what's up? Thanks.
>
> LarIt's me! I first became aware of FMS when families were being torn apart by seemingly well intentioned, but horribly wrong/misguided therapists.
From my interest in skepticism and scientific based beliefs, I became aware of scientific info. that was being ignored by promoters of recovered memories ( a few examples):
1) The more severe the trauma the LESS likely one is to forget it (or "repress" it).
2)Fathers committing incest against their children is extraordinarily rare. Mothers... even rarer.
3) The FBI has never found a single case of ritual satanic cults that molest or kill children (or adults).
4) The McMartin Case details.
I suspect that some may think that I have been falsely accused of some type of abusive behavior. NO.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 13:55:48
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 11:41:01
> It's me!
Who's that?
> I suspect that some may think that I have been falsely accused of some type of abusive behavior. NO.
Thank you. Much appreciated. I would not want to be unaware that somebody carried that kind of wound. I'd rather be informed.
Lar
Posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 14:24:20
In reply to Re: A new therapeutic technique!? » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on January 4, 2006, at 7:38:59
I don't have the time to respond to all of your points , even if I were capable of doing so.
Also, the pdf file wouldn't completely load for me. Portions of entire pages were missing.(They weren't just slow to load).
Perhaps I can discover if others have used the research as a citation. That might shed some light on its' validity.
> I just read the "strawberry ice cream" study, and I have some methodological concerns, to begin with. And some comments, in general.
>
> Here's the link again:
> https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/PNASStrawberryPrinted05.pdf?uniq=ynn4o
>
> First, I was really put off by how many times the authors emphasized "fattening" foods in the discussion of this study. As both foods tested were fattening (I suppose) the variable is controlled. It is therefore irrelevant in drawing conclusions. Because the variable was controlled, but the results differed for the two foods on 2 out of 3 post-test measures, what they have in fact shown is that the concept of "fattening" is not relevant to the implantation of false food-related memories. Moreover, their failure to induce food avoidance in the cookie arm/Party Behaviour Questionnaire raises questions about the method's effectiveness and generalizability.
>
> Also, if you look at the average pretest scores for the sub-groups the experimenters termed "believers" (a post hoc analysis, i.e. data mining, to begin with) you'll see that their scores were already different from the non-believers and controls. They should have tested to see if the sub-groups were significantly different, in the first place. They seem to be different before the manipulation occurred. That should have been ruled out. If they were different, the manipulation may be meaningless, because it cannot be shown that the effect doesn't arise only in a sub-population.
>
> Do you notice what's missing from the results section? They give percentages for implantation of false memories. They give changes in mean score for food avoidance, and their significance, but not the percentage of participants who actually did respond by newly avoiding the ice cream. Three really intense changes can shift a mean score significantly with that subject pool size. What was the effectiveness of this study? How many people avoided the ice cream (did all believers avoid?)? What percentage of all manipulated subjects actually avoided the food? They don't even tell us. (I bet it's because the numbers weren't very large.)
>
> They don't say how many people they got to *hypothetically* avoid this food in this *short-term* study. They didn't actually even offer them ice cream. They could have tested the same subjects again a month later. But they did neither. This was a thought experiment, covering one week, using university students, taking a course for credit.
>
> So, in the end, this study is suggestive, at best. Some people may possibly have their food selections manipulated by false memories. But how are you ever going to make that work in real life. False memories for every food there is? How do you reinforce those false memories once you've implanted them?
>
> Far too much being made of far too little, IMHO.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 16:19:24
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 11:41:01
We could be talking apples and oranges here so I don't want to seem argumentative. I don't have any idea what the percentage of fathers who molest their children is, but there is some evidence about when a child is molested, who the perps are.
this is from the protect.org main page -
"Roseanne Froeberg, who leads the sex crimes prosecution unit in the Orange County District Attorney's Office, has never understood why molesters who were related to victims were treated differently. "We would argue that the long-term trauma and need for counseling, impact on promiscuity, dependency and self-worth is more significant when the molestation is perpetrated by your own father, brother, uncle or mother's boyfriend," she said.
"This rectifies a loophole that has never made sense to those who are career sexual assault prosecutors," she said.
Effect: Froeberg said about half of the cases that come through her office are incest cases. That could lead to a significant increase in the number of county residents who go to prison for this crime."
Me again.
I also don't believe real satanists rape children any more than other people. One of the guys I grew up with became a satanist. But predators who trade in photos and children do many things to scare, confuse, and dominate their victims, including dressing up.
I'll look for some documentation on that. I still know that "ritual satanic sex abuse mpd" was a ridiculously overcommon diagnosis in the 90's. I ran into some of it in the hospital. I'm just pointing out that disproving one case doesn't disprove all.
Thanks,
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 18:01:55
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on January 4, 2006, at 11:41:01
Hey. I want to thank you for posting about the studies. They have got me thinking...
I was reading something last night...
And I was talking to Larry earlier about...
Whether by imagining...
(As opposed to talking to yourself)...You can change your reinforcement history.
So...
I'm wondering about two seperate ideas.
1) Telling yourself you experienced nausea after eating a certain kind of food as a kid...
2) Vividly imagining yourself experiencing nausea after eating a certain kind of food as a kid...And I wonder how much odour would facilitate that process..
Anyways... It has got me thinking.
On abuse...
> I first became aware of FMS when families were being torn apart by seemingly well intentioned, but horribly wrong/misguided therapists.
Yes. That does happen. Cases have been documented.
But on the other hand... Some people speak out about abuse and other people don't believe them. Other people put it down to a false memory when it is not.
Of course the situation isn't either
ALL cases of alleged abuse are true
or
ALL cases of alleged abuse are falseSome are true and some are false
But even that is too simplistic
Some are true in these respects and false in these others
And so on.I wondered whether you might have had false allegations against you or someone you know.
I am glad that is not the case.
But yes. It happens to some people.
And I think that just as we should be careful not to deny peoples reports of abuse...
We should be careful not to wholeheartedly embrace peoples reports of abuse either...
The point is...
The person is hurting.
In the present...
Posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 18:27:10
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » fires, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 18:01:55
> On abuse...
>
> > I first became aware of FMS when families were being torn apart by seemingly well intentioned, but horribly wrong/misguided therapists.
>
> Yes. That does happen. Cases have been documented.
>
> But on the other hand... Some people speak out about abuse and other people don't believe them. Other people put it down to a false memory when it is not.
>
> Of course the situation isn't either
>
> ALL cases of alleged abuse are true
> or
> ALL cases of alleged abuse are false
>
> Some are true and some are false
> But even that is too simplistic
> Some are true in these respects and false in these others
> And so on.
>
> I wondered whether you might have had false allegations against you or someone you know.
>
> I am glad that is not the case.
>
> But yes. It happens to some people.
>
> And I think that just as we should be careful not to deny peoples reports of abuse...
>
> We should be careful not to wholeheartedly embrace peoples reports of abuse either...
>
> The point is...
>
> The person is hurting.
> In the present...>
>
I tried to make this a link, but I don't know what I'm doing. I just got the net at home a few weeks ago. Here is an article by a man I admire that adresses not whether abuse or fms exist, but how to have a proper investigation when allegations are made. It doesn't comment on adult after the fact allegations, so it is not totally relevant to all discussed in this thread, but we did start out talking about ice cream so I don't actually know if I'm hijacking the thread or not.
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_8900_a.htmlthanks. I hope those who are interested can get there from the above, I will test it.
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 19:26:19
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » alexandra_k, posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 18:27:10
Hey. That was a good link :-)
Over here... (New Zealand) we have this thing called ACC (Accident Compensation) or similar.
Basically... Employers pay a levy to ACC (and maybe employees too, I'm not too sure). Then if you have a claim against your employer because of injury then the claim is with ACC (the government) instead of your being required to sue your employer for compensation.
ACC payouts... Are less than a successful lawsuit against a multi billion dollar company to be sure. But ACC claims do not require lawers, merely forms.
And sexual abuse... Is something that is also covered by ACC. So... Individuals are not sued for sexual abuse. There is an ACC claim and I do believe... It is up to the government to decide whether the individual will be prosecuted by the crown or not (though I might be wrong on this).
Most cases... Aren't tried. Or maybe the victim gets some say... I'm not too sure. But... You can get $$$ towards councelling / psychological treatment, medical treatment etc.
But what that means...
When you go to see a councellor...
They ask you about your ACC eligibility.
I have had councellors be fairly insistent that I surely *must* have been sexually abused in virtue of my dx.I think...
It is borderline whether it counts as sexual abuse or not... I don't think it helps me to view what happened as 'sexual abuse'... But... Well... I would be able to see a councellor if I was prepared to say 'yes I have been sexually abused'. But... I am not prepared to do that. And... I resent the system that makes it *easy* (comparatively) to get assistence so long as you say you have been sexually abused...
Of course... I think it is appropriate in cases of sexual abuse. But I do not think it is appropriate to ask outright without the client being the first to volounteer the information. I don't know. No harm in asking I guess... But *persistent* asking... Well... It does warn me off the therapist I'll admit. And I think that is probably a good thing.
Ian Hacking (in the link I provided above) talks a lot about the history of the concept of 'sexual abuse'.
These days... The concept covers a lot of ground... In the past... Not so much. Not nearly so much.
It used to be the case... That forcing ones wife to have sex was not considered sexual assault, sexual abuse, or rape. It was considered absurd to suggest that one could rape ones wife because wives were supposed to be there for their husbands to have sex with whenever they pleased.
Was it harmful? No doubt it was in some instances. But not all harmful things are considered to be sexual abuse...
Same with 'bad touching'
Same with 'sexual harrassment'Same with physical abuse.
Currently... Well... Depends where you live I suppose. Is spanking your child physical abuse? Times are changing...When the concept covers a restricted range of cases initially... Then is extended to cover a broader range of cases...
Well... Of course prevalence rates are going to go up.
Thats why they played around with the dx criteria for DID. At one point in time the criteria did not include the 'missing time' (amnesia) requirement. I think I might be wrong... But I do believe that was either DSM III or DSM III-TR. The amnesia requirement was reintroduced (in DSM IV I think) in order to...
...Curb the dramatic increase in the number of individuals diagnosed with the disorder.
If things that we currently consider sexual abuse (ie bad touching, sexual harrassment) were not considered sexual abuse in the past...
Then these wouldn't have been reported on or commented on quite the way they are now.
So of course the reported number of cases is on the rise as the concept applies to more and more things...
What is interesting...
Is how much people were harmed by those things in the past.
Maybe the harm was just as it is now...
Or maybe... Viewing those things as 'terrible horrible crimes' encourages... People to see themselves as victims (hence to experience outrage etc at the perpetrators) etc.
I think...
There may be some truth in that...
Posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 21:29:59
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » James K, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 19:26:19
I only have a minute because it is halftime of the university of southern california vs. university of texas (american) football game. I thought what you said relates to what happens to me. I have all the characteristics and reactions of a victim of childhood sexual abuse, but I wasn't abused that way. We're all different. It might be easy to buy into the idea that where there is smoke there is fire, but there isn't any reason my behavior wasn't caused just by physical abuse, stress, genetics, etc.
So sometimes therapists want me to "open up" more, and not be so "macho". But I can't share what didn't happen. It's hard enough dealing with what did.
I'm in daily groups now, so this all at the surface.
sports is a nice distraction when your team is ahead!
James K
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 21:41:41
In reply to Re: Do me a favour?, posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 21:29:59
yeah, i hear you :-)
gridiron?
bizzare sport...
still...
no stranger than rugby or cricket i suppose...
(Doesn't happen often so I'll take the opportunity to show off)
;-)
Posted by fires on January 5, 2006, at 11:15:12
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » fires, posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 16:19:24
> We could be talking apples and oranges here so I don't want to seem argumentative. I don't have any idea what the percentage of fathers who molest their children is, but there is some evidence about when a child is molested, who the perps are.
>"Just as patriarchal men have run away
from home if they couldn’t be the boss, there has been a strong feminist push to declare men
to be unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, in the lives of women and children. Actually,
abuse and incest by fathers is fairly uncommon, while abuse and incest from stepfathers and
passing boyfriends is alarmingly high."Source: http://www.smartmarriages.com/pittman.response.html
> this is from the protect.org main page -
>
> "Roseanne Froeberg, who leads the sex crimes prosecution unit in the Orange County District Attorney's Office, has never understood why molesters who were related to victims were treated differently. "We would argue that the long-term trauma and need for counseling, impact on promiscuity, dependency and self-worth is more significant when the molestation is perpetrated by your own father, brother, uncle or mother's boyfriend," she said.
>
> "This rectifies a loophole that has never made sense to those who are career sexual assault prosecutors," she said.
>
> Effect: Froeberg said about half of the cases that come through her office are incest cases. That could lead to a significant increase in the number of county residents who go to prison for this crime."
>
> Me again.
>
> I also don't believe real satanists rape children any more than other people. One of the guys I grew up with became a satanist. But predators who trade in photos and children do many things to scare, confuse, and dominate their victims, including dressing up.
>
> I'll look for some documentation on that. I still know that "ritual satanic sex abuse mpd" was a ridiculously overcommon diagnosis in the 90's. I ran into some of it in the hospital. I'm just pointing out that disproving one case doesn't disprove all.<"No hard evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse in North America has been found. Nevertheless, the allegations were widely publicized on radio and television talk shows, especially on Geraldo Rivera's show.
A four-year study in the early 1990s found the allegations of satanic ritual abuse to be without merit. The study was conducted by University of California at Davis psychology professors Gail S. Goodman and Phillip R. Shaver, in conjunction with Jianjian Qin of UC Davis and Bette I. Bottoms of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Their study was supported by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. The researchers investigated more than 12,000 accusations and surveyed more than 11,000 psychiatric, social service, and law enforcement personnel. The researchers could find no unequivocal evidence for a single case of satanic cult ritual abuse.
Source: http://skepdic.com/satanrit.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> James K
Posted by fires on January 5, 2006, at 11:45:17
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » fires, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 18:01:55
> Hey. I want to thank you for posting about the studies. They have got me thinking...
>
> I was reading something last night...
>
> And I was talking to Larry earlier about...
>
> Whether by imagining...
> (As opposed to talking to yourself)...
>
> You can change your reinforcement history.
>
> So...
>
> I'm wondering about two seperate ideas.
>
> 1) Telling yourself you experienced nausea after eating a certain kind of food as a kid...
> 2) Vividly imagining yourself experiencing nausea after eating a certain kind of food as a kid...My opinion: It wouldn't work. Also, if you read the studies about most implanted memories, a contagion element is nearly always included. included. The contagion phenomena took place in the McMartin preschool case, and was *knowingly* used by social workers as a technique to get children to agree with the molestation stories.
>
> And I wonder how much odour would facilitate that process..If you read about MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivities), it dosen't take any odor in some individuals. Some have responded to sham exposures to formaldehyde and other substances. Suggestion was enough to illicit a response.
>
> Anyways... It has got me thinking.
>
> On abuse...
>
> > I first became aware of FMS when families were being torn apart by seemingly well intentioned, but horribly wrong/misguided therapists.
>
> Yes. That does happen. Cases have been documented.
>
> But on the other hand... Some people speak out about abuse and other people don't believe them. Other people put it down to a false memory when it is not.Allegations with third party substantiation generally are believed. Also, memories that have always been presented are. "Recovered " memories have been shown to generally be false.
>
> Of course the situation isn't either
>
> ALL cases of alleged abuse are true
> or
> ALL cases of alleged abuse are false
>
> Some are true and some are false
> But even that is too simplistic
> Some are true in these respects and false in these others
> And so on.
>
> I wondered whether you might have had false allegations against you or someone you know.
>
> I am glad that is not the case.
>
> But yes. It happens to some people.
>
> And I think that just as we should be careful not to deny peoples reports of abuse...
>
> We should be careful not to wholeheartedly embrace peoples reports of abuse either...
>
> The point is...
>
> The person is hurting.
> In the present...
>
>
Posted by James K on January 5, 2006, at 17:32:49
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » James K, posted by fires on January 5, 2006, at 11:15:12
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.