Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

Page should be deleted

or at least make it sure that it's clear that DID is a fictitious disorder 2A00:23C8:903:FE01:2C69:DE3A:315D:3FD3 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in the DSM, which is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. lizthegrey (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be deleted, but the disorder is certainly disputed as an organic phenomena. As for DSM, Allen Frances who lead the DSM-5 development wanted to delete the disorder entirely. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinions are divided as to its origins, or whether it is even a naturally occurring disorder at all, but there is no doubt that there are those who show its symptoms or that it can be observed in parts of the world. The page should obviously not be deleted; DID is an observable phenomenon and whether one believes it is "real" or iatrogenic, culture-bound, sociogenic or caused by trauma, it is notable and merits inclusion. If you feel the article needs more information, you are welcome to contribute. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleteing the page I think is a bit of an exaggeration, Wikipedia obviously should have a page on DID; however, I get where he is coming from. I took a couple of Psych courses in college, and while they didn't go that far into last I checked psychologists didn't really believe in it. In fact, the last time I heard about somebody claiming to have DID they were treated the same way as someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens. (It was on Doctor Phil, and in the end, it was revealed that he was abusing veritably every illegal drug on the market. His brain was so smashed up that it was hard to imagine any mental or cognitive symptoms that he wouldn't be facing, but you can't trust a guy on meth). The disbelief in DID wasn't just something amongst Ivy League doctors, for all the flack the movie Split got for demonizing mental illness it is safe to say that M.N. Shyamalan wouldn't make a horror film where the monster is somebody who is autistic, or bipolar. The writers and the actors only made the film because DID didn't exist in their minds.

Yet this page makes it sound like the skeptics are the odd ones out, fringe detractors from a well-established diagnosis. So either a monumental shift has happened in the world of psychology, or this article is leaving out a whole lot of context regarding how much the idea is disapproved. Perhaps I have just happened to find myself surrounded by what is actually the minority opinion whenever DID comes up, but I've seen Wikipedia articles about topics that I think are much more widely accepted where the subject is outright described as pseudo-science in the first two sentences. So, the fact that the controversy isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph is quite alarming.50.53.196.40 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean Factitious? Or am I misinterpreting that? 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a webpage that may help: https://did-research.org/controversy/malingering/pseudogenic 71.46.227.2 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a Gartner Hype Cycle thing, most of the criticism come from the trough of disillusionment in the 2000s and are fairly outdated. It seems more accepted now, even if for some it's in terms of a "it's just one aspect of a broader more complicated thing". I've added a recent review that seems helpful. --Fangz (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Allen Frances worked on DSM-4, not 5. In his article he said that he personally did not believe in MPD/DID (and still does not) but could not delete it from DSM4 (in 1987) because he had no actual evidence backing up this "guess". And well, it's not his topic of specialism.-Fangz (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"because he had no actual evidence backing up this "guess"", no this is not how the DSM works. It has nothing to do with a "no actual evidence backing up this guess". It was an informed opinion with evidence. DSM debates can end up much like the concept of "proving" or "disproving" the existence of god – something that can't be done. Letting your personal biases show here was not a good idea, especially when you're talking about DSM chairs like Allen Frances and claiming they're making a "guess" with "no actual evidence". Hmmm. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how the DSM works, which is why DID/MPD was included in DSM-4. The word "guess" is in quotes because it's the word Frances used himself to characterise his opinion.

My best guess is that the labeling of 'alters' offers an appealing and dramatic metaphor, an idiom of distress. [...] I couldn't rid DSM-IV of MPD because I had to follow my own rules and there was no compelling proof that MPD didn't exist as a meaningful clinical entity. It was only my personal opinion- however certain I was.

Fangz (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Significant event relating to this in Australia.

I dont know how to write medical stuff, so I am simply linking this in.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-05/father-accused-sexual-abuse-multiple-personalities-verdict/104674820

Why this appears to be IMPORTANT to me as a layman is, as the article says, that the court treated each separate personality as an separate individual, even going so far as to swear in each personality as a witness as a separate person. This to me as a layman signifies that the court has accepted the existence of separate personalities as REALITY. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:701F:B8BF:952E:A585 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

this is not a WP:MEDRS. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Could be DUE to write something under Legal issues heading. lizthegrey (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Did" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Did has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 25 § Did until a consensus is reached. KOLANO12 3 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"Split personality" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Split personality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § Split personality until a consensus is reached. LIrala (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Fangz, I'm going to ask to you revert yourself again [1] here until we have agreed on this. Look, you cannot combine two articles like that to form another conclusion. This is WP:SYNTH and does not belong in WP:VOICE:

"After a sharp decline in publications in the early 2000s from the initial peak in the 90s, some authors claimed the disorder to be an academic fad, however research subsequently attained a steady increase with greater acceptance"

That is now in wiki voice as though there is "greater acceptance". It needs to state that Pope et al. attribute it to a fad, while Boysen et al. argue it has garnered "greater acceptance". Attribution is clearly the only way this article is going to work, because the trauma model has not garnered mainstream acceptance at all. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia synth if the claim itself is directly made in the sourced article. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", however Boysen explicitly says Pope is wrong and does so using evidence from subsequent events Pope does not have access to. It is not just Boysen that do not agree with the "fad" theory, there's at least one paper from a DID-critical perspective critical of the "fad" characterisation. If you wish to argue that the trauma model has not garnered mainstream acceptance since 2011, cite something please. Fangz (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Put it this way, if someone says "it's going to rain tomorrow", then after that it doesn't rain and there's a source saying "despite what that other guy said, it didn't rain", the two possibilities are to go with a combined "despite guy A saying that, it didn't rain", to just use the second source. It's wholly unnatural to try to present the two as if it's balanced. If Pope's moved on to a different critique, then cite that. Alternatively just delete the whole thing from the lede because it's a historical critique and not particularly important *even* for DID-critics. Fangz (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's totally synth. And "some authors claimed the disorder to be an academic fad, however research subsequently attained a steady increase with greater acceptance" – looks like POV pushing. It's trying to frame the former as "some authors" and then the latter as though it is now the accepted consensus (using WP:VOICE). If DID isn't supported by Johns Hopkins Hospital psychiatry, it's safe to say the trauma model has not gained mainstream acceptance. Popes 1999 survey found only 21% of psychiatrists believed there was strong evidence for MPD/DID [2] – where is the evidence this has significantly changed since then? Pope's critique is clearly important because it is cited today. Some classic works in psychology continue being important. Also tagging Hob Gadling and MrOllie who have expertise in the dissociation articles. Looks like Fangz wants to make the trauma model the accepted model of DID now Zenomonoz (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"If DID isn't supported by Johns Hopkins Hospital psychiatry" - John Hopkins Hospital under McHugh also opposed gender reassignment and spoke in support of mutability of sexual orientation, both fringe views. A single hospital doesn't dictate much of anything. Meanwhile editorials about trauma based DID are published in things like the BPS [3] and the UK NHS [4]. 26 years is a very long time in psychiatry. For example, if that was valid we would still be believing in the accuracy of recovered memory! Note also your characterisation is not complete: Pope's 1999 survey found 20% saying "little or no evidence of validity", 51% saying "partial evidence" and 21% saying "strong evidence", 10% no opinion. The explanatory text made it clear that "only iatrogenic" counts of little or no evidence/should not be included in this characterisation. Thus Pope actually shows traumagenic to be the majority opinion as of 1999. Fangz (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

McHugh hasn't been the head of Hopkins for quite a while now though. Not sure what the relevance of completely unrelated topics is either, stay on topic.

"Pope actually shows traumagenic to be the majority opinion as of 1999" – what a way to distort of the pope et al. survey.

There's plenty of recent evidence that challenges the trauma model. There are recent reviews too [5]

I'm suggesting you stop trying to POV push with a single review and make it into WP:VOICE. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A recent source, just over half of 800 surveyed French psychiatrists [6] expressed very strong doubts about the existence of DID or simply did not believe in it at all. It would seem the consensus of psychiatrists has actually moved away from the trauma model since 1999 and into 2023, and this is France (a country big on Freud!) meaning it's probably even less supported in the English speaking west. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Just over = 51%. 50%-50% doubters vs believers in French psychiatrists, most of whom don't work with such patients (note that the paper itself makes the argument that it is due to lack of knowledge). 35% doubters in Australia. That seems mainstream to me, debate is alive, sure, but otherwise, where would you put "mainstream acceptance" at? I suggest you propose a form you like. That is all. You put me in the impossible position of trying to read your mind. Fangz (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including the review you provided, I just don't think it makes sense to incorporate a trauma source and a sociogenic source into the same sentence, and conclude that the trauma model is the accepted one using WP:VOICE.

And no, 51% saying they have doubts/disbelief about an organic form of the disorder does not mean the other 49% support the trauma model. You aren't accounting for 'no opinion' and 'dont know' answers etc. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In the full paper, they do. Marco et al, 2024. It's a normal spread. ~20% accept with no reservations, 30% accept with some reservations, 50% do not accept/strong reservations. The third who did not respond are not included. Fangz (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, so they still found most do not support the trauma model of DID. Marco et al. [7] conclude: "This survey shows the skepticism (80.5% cannot say they believe it without reservation)". Seems quite different from your claim that they found 50% are "believers". Zenomonoz (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Believe with reservation is still a belief. I would say that around half believing with moderate reservation *is* accepted mainstream, even if not universal acceptance. Note that if you do not accept this, sociogenic is *also* not mainstream. Fangz (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly not accepted mainstream. Sources routinely (for example Psychology today) refer to it as controversial, and that is incompatible with mainstream acceptance. A lot of this controversy is not about whether people present with the symptoms (they unquestionably do) but what that actually means and if there is really a distinct, underlying disorder. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say that around half believing with moderate reservation *is* accepted mainstream What a strange criterion to consider something mainstream. VdSV9•♫ 12:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

How are we defining mainstream acceptance and how is this actually relevant to the discussion? I do not propose to remove the word "controversial" from the article, but an approximate 50-50 split makes it also far from a fringe belief. In my view both traumagenic and sociogenic are mainstream. You're arguing neither is? Fangz (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we would need a source that directly supports such a statement. We don't go counting heads ourselves, and we don't come up with our own definitions. So if you want to say something is accepted by the mainstream, you'd need a source that says exactly that: "X is accepted by the mainstream." - and it would have to be a source that is more authoritative than those saying otherwise. You haven't presented anything like that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm not proposing to add such a sentence. But I would oppose a sentence saying it's *not accepted by the mainstream* without reliable sourcing either. This is all a bit semantic since initially I was reacting to Zenomonoz's statement, which feels overly aggressive. Rather I want to establish a clear consensus opinion here before we edit. Right now it seems about 50-50 in the debate, with a growing faction going with an unified "sometimes"/"combination of factors", as per your article. Agreed? Fangz (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not agree, and framing such things in that way is not helpful. WP:NOTAVOTE. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean a vote between us, I mean as an overview of the position amongst psychologists. That 50:50 is what feels to me to be the position established by your source, and other "neutral" sources. I feel that should be the position the article should edit towards to avoid giving undue weight to any particular author. If you disagree then please at least tell me where your position is and justify it with something authoritative. (I don't consider Paris/Pope/Piper to count here since they've clearly been on one side for a long time, similarly I wouldn't throw in say, Brand/Kluft on the other side) I assign high credibility to Boysen because he had been critical of pro-traumagenic literature in the past with his 2011 review, so he seems to be an unbiased reviewer with not much skin in the game. Fangz (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I also disagree that we can take an opinion poll and convert that into 50-50 position in the debate, since the 'debaters' are not the same group as those sampled. I'm not really interested in discussing my personal position here, but I will say that deciding on one's personal position and then editing the article towards it is the opposite of what Wikipedia's stance on undue weight requires. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying we should adopt a *consensus* opinion to avoid future edit warring. Just disagreeing, disagreeing, disagreeing does not provide a route forward. I want to build a consensus with you. To me, obviously there exists disagreement and there are reliable sources on both sides of the debate. Do you agree with that? Sources strongly in favour of tDID or sDID, if both exist, should not be afforded special prevalence? Do you agree with that? What would you agree with, if not? The simple fact is that if I do not understand this, I cannot propose changes aimed at achieving consensus support. And you seem unwilling to propose changes yourself. Fangz (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus should support specific wording or particular change, via collaborative writing with all parties (not just me and you) and compromise as required. I don't find general questions to be fruitful most of the time, since the devil is in the details. Also: I don't accept the premise of your questions that there are only two 'sides' to the debate. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to collaborate, but no one seems to want to collaborate with me. And on the contrary, I do find general questions to be fruitful. I think there's a need to establish trust, since in my opinion Zenomonoz acted in bad faith immediately. "Looks like Fangz wants to make the trauma model the accepted model of DID now" If people are ascribing motives for me, I have a right to see their own motives. My goal is that I think it's important to update the article to the current state of opinion in the field, instead of over-relying on sources from 20 years ago. Fangz (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if you are upset with Zenomonoz, they are an editor in good standing and you will have to work with them if you want to make changes to this article. MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I can only work with someone if they are willing to work with me.

Look, there's a difference between being slow and careful and just being obstructionist. A conversation where I say things, you say No, I don't agree, and then I adjust and say something else, and you say No, I don't agree, is a truly frustrating way to discuss and works directly against wiki etiquette. I'm not comfortable with the tone and presumption displayed towards me throughout, and I have tried to treat you both the way I wish to be treated. I'm sorry if my initial edits were POV-pushy but my view of Bold/Revert/Discuss is that at this point I've done quite a lot of the work so other people should step up and make some kind of step towards achieving consensus themselves. Fangz (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Heaping personal attacks on Zenomonoz will not help the situation, see WP:NPA. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Saying someone made a personal attack on me is not in itself a personal attack. It is a plea for civility. Fangz (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A true statement, but an irrelevant one because that is not what you just did. But I will end this tangent here, feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not want to take the last word. I want good faith engagement and following the rules of wikipedia, without employing them unfairly and maliciously. All throughout this conversation, all I wanted was for you or Z to edit the article towards what you want, or propose something on this talkpage. Fangz (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Also Boysen is not a trauma source, though his paper is very critical of sociogenic. I think his position is even between traumagenic and multi-dimensional, though that is new and currently poorly evidenced. Fangz (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, you've also done synth in your paragraph you inserted here. Using one source, then comma, "conceding that" – you're using two different sources. The first discussed review did not conclude with support for the trauma model, but you just added a second sentence with a different source saying it "conceded" that "trauma may be more important than sociocognitive factors". Zenomonoz (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Lynn's article says

Trauma may well be a more salient antecedent to dissociation in clinical compared with nonclinical samples in which sociocognitive and other variables (e.g., cognitive failures, sleep disruptions) may be more prepotent. Research is needed to delineate whether trauma, more general negative affectivity, and/or daily stresses mediate or moderate the various failures in adaptive systems or processes we have identified. We also suggest that researchers define clearly what they mean by a traumatic event and specify whether this designation refers to the nature of the event itself, the person’s adverse response to the event, or both. Trauma may be one of multiple pathways to dissociation.

If you do not agree with how I characterised this passage, then feel free to supply your own. Fangz (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, stop complaining and write some wikitext. I will not consider it a reversion if you propose good faith revisions that represent your concerns. It will be a lot easier and speedier than me trying to divine what sort of wording you would like while you delete 100% of my work every time. You make it feel a lot like you just want to exhaust me until things can revert to the prior state of the article. Please, I have work to do. Fangz (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Playing sources off each other like this does look like synthesis, and words like 'conceding' seem to be editorializing. That's expressing an opinion in Wikivoice, and not one that is detectable in the sources.

Fangz, please slow down and get consensus support for your changes before proceeding. During a dispute Wikipedia decision making does not move particularly quickly, we really don't do 'easier and speedier' in situations like this one. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's hard for me to get consensus support when I genuinely do not know what form is being proposed here. Okay, I can replace conceded with "suggested". That's easy. But I genuinely do not think the other statement is synthesis because it's a position literally given in the source itself. There's wanting things to be fast and easy and me simply not knowing how to proceed because the complaints are just too vague. So please, someone, propose an alternative wording. I will accept separate sentences if it is properly characterised what Boysen is arguing, or I will accept the removal of the entire thing from the lede. I don't need it in one sentence, I went with one sentence because that other user tried to remove the second source previously when it was a separate sentence. Fangz (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would not call the thing I have "expertise". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, MrOllie has more expertise on this topic. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)