View source for Talk:Recovered memory

{{subpages}}

== Appropriateness of external links; pattern of introducing content ==

I would ask Citizens to look at the article, which deals with neurology and psychology, and then to look at the External Links page.  Are the external links consistent with the scientific approach of the article, or are they a way to have CZ pointing to ritual abuse advocacy sites? How many of them are neurological? 

Do also look at the article, which starts on general neurological aspects, but, without emphasis, focuses on repetitive child abuse.

There is unquestionably child abuse. Oddly, the existing article on the subject is not being edited, but new articles, on possibly controversial theories, keep getting introduced. What would a search engine see as the growing amount of CZ material focused on repetitive child abuse? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:None of the links are about ritual abuse.  All are directly related to the topic. All of the articles are accurate as written. (reverted by user: It appears that you are following me around on Citizendium now, which feels like harassment.) [[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::Harassment? Perhaps concern with [[CZ: Neutrality Policy]], which is reasonably within my scope as both a Citizen and a member of the Editorial Council. 

::I certainly don't object to someone "following" my contributions. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:::I was going to strike the comment, but you replied first. Will do so now. [[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Bibliography==
I've done a swift PUbMed search and placed on the Bibliography page details of all recent reviews on this area that seemed relevant, as a start. Some of those I've worked into the Introduction. The main problem with this article is the apparent presumption that recovered memories are reliable; this is deeply disputed. Accordingly a) the fact that it is disputed must be stated unambiguously at the outset. To handle a complex literature in a controversial area neutrally, perhaps the best way is with an objective survey of peer-reviewed reviews in the academic literature - reviews are better for this than primary reports anecdotal reports or books as they are or should be balanced syntheses. It is especially important to give proportionate weight to the skeptical views that seem indeed to dominate in the academic literature. I'm not sure that mechanisms of memory are really relevant here; the issue is simply one of reliability; frankly, current theories of memory are not sophisticated enough to help here. On external links, again it is obvious that there must be an attempt to be objective about selecting links and not use only links that support one side of a controversy. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you, Gareth. Your improvements do help in the short term, but they also address part of what I see about the problem. Even though you have properly qualified the first sentence, the first sentence does not restate the article title, but generalizes it; this is a problem with the rest of the article. Would the title sentence "'''Neurological theories of recovered memory''' has been defined as the phenomenon of partially or fully losing part or a specific aspect of a memory, and then later recovering part or all of the memory into conscious awareness" work? That rephrasing into CZ style no longer makes sense.

:[[Recovered memory]] is a redlink; the article should begin with a lede of '''neurological theories of recovered memories''', and limit itself to that. Alternatively, setting this context would require an article truly about all views of [[recovered memory]]. It can't be a way to introduce the broader term as accepted, and then go off into some aspect. As with several related articles, the discussion here of a technical subject, or of a publication/survey related to it, operating under the assumption that the phenomenon is generally accepted. I also note that the "definition" is not sourced. I certainly don't insist on the lede sentence being sourced; it can be quite good for the first sentence to be a readable synthesis but the next few sentences need to be sourced references to sides in a controversial position.

:While, as yet, we do not have a formal policy on orphaned articles, this certainly is one. Had there first been an article on [[recovered memory]], with comments from both sides, then there would be a much stronger basis for this article. As you know, in other articles on controversial topics, I have worked them into a hierarchy to make them self-defining: first, for example, define a topic as generally as possible, using international law and other definitions, before getting into specific national discussions or case reports. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::Point taken. Suggest renaming this [[Recovered memory]] with redirect from [[False memory]]?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:: I've tightened the text somewhat but am uncomfortable about the degree of speculation. I'm a neuroscientist, and this is a neuroscientist's distaste for neuropsychologists who use the words of neuroscience but don't dance the dance; not getting at you Neil at all - but for instance GABA - well half the cells in the brain use GABA, saying it's involved is like saying you need air to breathe. The opioid link is nearly all junked science. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, i agree with Gareth's suggested move and redirect and went ahead and did it.  I hope this is OK. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Context of "trauma" ==

"Trauma" is a very general term, and the usage here needs to do one of two things:
#Narrow the definition to specific forms of psychological events, which are certainly things presented in therapy. "It is important to separate the role of the mental health professional as therapist from the role as an expert witness in court." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8988572?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed]
#General physical and psychological trauma from accidents, combat, etc. I'm active, for example, in the Trauma and Critical Care [http://www.trauma.org] online forum. 

Without touching the issues of ritual abuse, there is obviously a huge knowledge base dealing with the second sort of trauma. The military has an immense interest in combat-related stress. Physical trauma medicine is multidisciplinary, and a survivor of multisystem trauma from an automobile accident is apt to get psychological evaluation, and treatment if necessary. While the methods are controversial &mdash; Critical Incident Stress Debriefing is now deprecated &mdash; emergency response workers also are monitored for psychological trauma.

So, given the amount of data on trauma of the second sort, which is noncontroversial, why are the examples predominantly related to child abuse? The second sentence of the first paragraph introduces the first case" "People sometimes report recovering long-forgotten memories of, for example, childhood sexual abuse." There is one mention of "Vietnam combat veterans with PTSD, and in patients with PTSD related to early childhood sexual and physical abuse. ",  but all of the other trauma examples appear to be child and sex oriented. There are explicit mentions of child neurology but much more vague references to all populations. 

This emphasis makes me about the article being a way to introduce content about patterns of child abuse, rather than seriously addressing the broader subject. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

: Well, yes; but this is an interesting topic and one that needs to be handled properly. I'm not suggesting for a second that it's OK by me; I've just made a start with the first 3 sections and most importantly the bibliography. We could think about structure : subsequent headings might be Trauma; Post-traumatic stress disorder (with related text on effects on memory). Other headings?  Laboratory studies on false memory; Suggestion; Legal cases; Media coverage?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::Gareth, you know that I like to approach subjects from a top-down standpoint. We certainly could use an article on [[trauma]]; I can speak fairly well to the scope of emergency/trauma medicine. Psychological trauma is a subset.

::I can also come up with a fair bit of data on combat trauma and trauma in emergency service workers, as well as the still-difficult diagnosis and management. If, however, child abuse trauma is to be considered separately, let's identify it as such. Note that there is already an article, which definitely could use work, on [[child abuse]].  Again, a top-down approach might start with the well-documented areas of physical abuse and individual pedophilia, before leaping into ritual matters with much less documentation. 

::It's also an interesting question how this topic meets family-friendliness. When I was 7 or so, I saw an artist's reconstruction of an unidentified child, beaten to death, in a police request for information posted in a public place. I had nightmares for years. I had some rough personal experiences as a child, but there is a large difference in making family-friendly safety warnings available, and creating vivid imagery, even in words. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
==Medicolegal==
Looking at the Boakes and Porter quotes, I wonder if they really should be relegated to a footnote. Rather, perhaps their quotes, and possibly accepted testimony on recovered memory, might be the start of a section on medicolegal aspects of recovered memory. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

: Yes fine in a section, but that would be too much for the lead?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::Agreed. What would you think of having a sentence in the lead that essentially says the area has much controversy, especially in the U.S., in balancing the rights of the accused against testimony that may either be imagined or a very bad experience?  Such a sentence would then wikilink internally to the section, where the quotes could live. I'm open to suggestions about internationalizing the controversy; I simply don't know to what extent it's been an issue outside the U.S.  Apparently, it is of note in Germany. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Style issue ==

It really isn't CZ style to put four and five sources after a statement. If the sources say essentially the same thing, pick a good one, or, even better, quote a peer-reviewed meta-analysis or review.

If they say different things, then the differences need to brought out. For sheer readability, it is possible that a point that needs five references may need to be in a separate section or subarticle. 

Numbers of references alone proves nothing. It would be, however, extremely informative to have impact metrics on the references. Impact metrics, I recognize, are evolving, with both citation and view measurements suggesting different things. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:IMO, it is sometimes good to have more than one source back up a controversial point. Being an encyclopedia, it also gives readers more resources on the topic. But I will keep your idea in mind and think about the style angle more.[[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::Again purely speaking to style, pick the best source if there is no review, and then put the rest in bibliography/external links. We aren't trying to give readers "more resources" ''in the main article''. That's the role of subpages.  An encyclopedia is not a bibliography, but a place of synthesis and summarization. Right now, it's almost impossible to scan up and down between the text and the reference list, because the list of citations gets so long.

::I have written articles with a great number of citations to primary document sources. Nevertheless, there was almost invariably enough differences betweenthe cited documents that each valid reference had a sentence about its point. Physically, that's much easier to understand than five footnotes in series. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this and pretty much agreed with Howard's point here in a section below.  There is one small paragraph that has up to 15 references.  This is not helpful to a reader, IMO. As writers we know the material and should limit our cites to the most pertinent. As writers it is our responsibility to reduce the redundancy for the readers. More often than not, more is not better. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

==Notes==
On references, I think we need to distinguish between accepted points and disputed points. I ''think'' it is generally accepted that:
*a) some recovered memories are memories of real events and 
*b) some are not, 
*c) individual witness reports of recent traumatic events are unreliable, 
*d) ordinary memories of long past events are unreliable, particularly in being often heavily embelished, 
*e) false memories can be quite easily induced in some subjects by suggestion, especially with hypnosis, 
*f) memories of traumatic events are sometimes suppressed by unknown mechanisms, and 
*g) false memories seem absolutely real to the person remembering. I
*h)there is no way of telling which recovered memories are reliable and which are unreliable except by external evidence of the events. 

What is disputed I think is 
*A) exactly how reliable recovered memories are
*B) whether recovered memories are generally as reliable as ordinary memories, 
*C) whether (and if so which) therapy techniques themselves are responsible for implanting false memories in some cases. 

I'd welcome agreement/disagreement on this list, so we know where we are exactly. If we can construct a list of what is accepted and what is disputed, perhaps it might be helpful to but this in the article as a summary box?


I'm afraid I don't know what the following statements mean exactly, (so I guess that will be generally true for naive readers like me) "The base rates for memory commission errors are quite low, at least in professional trauma treatment. The base rates in adult misinformation studies run between zero and 5 percent for adults and between 3 - 5 percent for children"

Is there a primary source so I can try and understand this? The book referred to is clearly a strong text and I've added text from a review to explain it as a source (Bibliography), but don't have ready access to it.

Many professional organisations seem to have made formal statements and I'm trying to track these down on the web - I've added a list on the external links, though haven't found links for many yet. I think in trying to construct an objective overview of the topic these need to be given due weight in the article. Any help in tracking down web sources on these would be welcome.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== intro too long ==

Seems far too detailed with too many references. It seems like a mini article in its own right.  For example, hypnotism material should be in the body of the article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:I just added a new heading titled Authenticity.  Feel free to change the heading but lets keep all the content out of the intro.  As an aside, the second to last paragraph in that section has far too many citations to be useful (at present this includes the citations in the twenties), we should be focusing on the best references.  To a reader, too many references become bewildering an is not helpful.  I would go through and weed out the redundant or weak ones but i do not have enough background information to begin the task. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== First attempt on unifying context ==

Fully understanding that not all trauma or recovered memories are suggested to be sexual, I created a preliminary article, [[medicalizing sexual offenses]]. In no way am I committed to that specific title, although the subject is important.  It needs a parent topic of [[sexual offenses]], as well as on [[sexual offenses against children]], [[child abuse]] (which isn't always sexual), and [[criminalizing consensual sexual activities]]. I offer it in the goal of establishing context for a number of difficult articles. 

In this case, there needs to be a parent topic of [[trauma]], including purely emotional, physical (i.e., multisystem [[trauma medicine]] is an interdisciplinary centered around surgery but not limited to it), and interactions: if there is recovered memory and trauma, it certainly could apply to an accident victim just as much as to a crime victim.

The issues raised are relevant here, and in [[recovered memory]], since the topics are at the intersection of law, health sciences, ethics and social sciences. 

If some of these redlinks can be filled in, remembering family friendliness, and the articles (or Related Pages) be well-linked, it would be a start on taking individual studies and books and putting them into broader and &mdash; dare I say ''more encyclopedic''' &mdash; contexts. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Apropos "this is not specifically about sexual abuse" ==

Agreeing with your concern, Chris. In my experience with multisystem trauma medicine, it's certainly recognized that patients may have retrograde amnesia about the key events. Sometimes, there's some clinical importance to getting the best possible understanding of a forgotten memory of flying around in a tumbling car; recollections of the exact circumstances and mechanism complement examination and imaging in the treatment plan.  

In other cases, especially when the retrograde amnesia is prolonged and interferes with activities of daily living, psychotherapists may well get involved in the rehabilitation.

I'll simply note that I have never heard the term "recovered memory" used in these context, or in stress prevention debriefings for emergency workers and combat veterans. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:So maybe the term is specific to sexual abuse? And a small circle of professionals at that?  Or possibly a new upcoming term? It certainly "seems" to be a general term from my perspective of ignorance. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::Just to add, the references cited in this article seem to address recovered memories other than sexual abuse too, which is why I assumed it was a more general term. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Without judging the merits, the term seemed to come into use in a legal context, associated with child abuse allegations. I've just glanced through several trauma medicine textbooks and it doesn't appear. My guess is that it's more legal and the applications of social science to law. 

:::Gareth should have the definitive word here, but my impression is that the more general literature focuses on [[amnesia]] and the treatment of  amnesias from traumatic, organic brain damage, chemical, and other etiologies. This article should certainly have [[amnesia]] and [[memory]] as parents. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

==Section on neurological basis==
The difficulty with this section is a) that it puts excessive weight on a few rather old papers and b) it's about PTSD rather than recovered memory. There's no doubt that acute stress affects memory processes, and there are reports of long term structural changes that are generally in line with many other findings. Bremner has several more recent reviews, van der Kalb also. My suggestion is to start an article on PTSD and move the current text there and then update and broaden the coverage? I'll get back on the points above[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:Apropos PTSD, I definitely can mention that both in the U.S. military and civilian disaster preparedness, there is much emphasis that not all [[stress disorder]]s are [[PTSD]]; see [[Posttraumatic stress disorder/ Related Articles]]. There are recognized acute stress syndromes, and at least three MeSH-recognized PSTD types. Recognition of all is very critical, especially the earliest signs of PTSD, where interventions may be most useful. In like manner, while it's controversial (one technique, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing was found harmful for some people), there are proactive methods of dealing with emergency service workers and soldiers who have just gone through a sitution likely to be traumatic. In fire services, for example, it appears there '''must''' be time soon after for team discussion and mutual support, in casualty situations and especially when they've lost some of their own. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)