User talk:Neil Brick

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Larry Sanger 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

EAS definition

Hi Neil, and welcome. I made a slight change to your definition as they are designed to be used in the context of the {{R}} template on the Related Articles subpages. FYI, so you can see the context, if I write {{R|Extreme Abuse Survey}} it will display as follows:

• Extreme abuse survey [r]: Add brief definition or description

Consequently, have the full name in the definition becomes redundant. Chris Day 04:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As for getting the article approved you will need to get a Psychology editor to fill out the metadata and start the approval process. I'm not sure if there are any active ones around but you could try using the mailing list. Possibly you could post a request at CZ the forum too. Sorry I can't be of any more help. Chris Day 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

my talk

Hi Neil, thanks for the note. I'm getting ready to call it quits tonight. I'll take a look tomorrow morning. The last I saw, i was still really concerned with how the article was more concerned with the details of abuse rather than the details of the book. Do you understand the difference? It is subtle. Keep inmind, we also have a family friendly policy here as well, so some of the goary details will have to go, I think. D. Matt Innis 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have cut out all of the gory details and cut way back on the details of the abuse. Hope this is closer to what works.Neil Brick 05:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made further edits to address your comments above. Please let me know if you think it is ready for main space now. Thanks. Neil Brick 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Neil, I made some changes, too. Mostly re-arranging now as you cleaned up most of my concerns. I think if you are happy with it, you can put it back and we'll let the rest of the authors go at it. We still need a literature editor to take a look at it, but as long as we don't get too much into the details in this book, I think we can avoid the psychology and health science aspects. However, I would like to see articles about all of these issues that handle them neutrally and without passion on either side. It is important. D. Matt Innis 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your papers

Hi Neil, your profile currently states that you have "written many research papers on child abuse issues". However, I did not find any of them via a Google Scholar search for "Neil Brick" child abuse (nor in ISI Web of Knowledge). Can you thus please provide the metadata (or, better yet, links to online versions) of, say, the top five or top ten of your papers? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

quotation

It has been in one of the other article pages, where it was removed several times. If I'm wrong about this, I will apologize and remove my quote, but I don't think that I am. Hayford Peirce 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, I do not recall it ever being in any other article. Please show me where it was. Neil Brick 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a day or so to research it. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please let me know if you find it anywhere. I cannot recall ever using it anywhere else. Neil Brick 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to proceed

Hi Neil, in reply to your recent mail, I have the following suggestions:

1. Much of building an encyclopedia is about establishing context, and relevant context already exists at child abuse and child sexual abuse. So please think about adding to these pages rather than splitting the topic unnecessarily. And keep in mind that this is not the place to advocate but to inform.
2. Check how articles on the subject are covered in other encyclopedic environments, e.g. in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and how this can be integrated with CZ:Neutrality policy.
3. As for books, specifically, I do not think any of the ones you started currently merit an entire article at CZ. What you could perhaps do, though, is add them - along with less biased sources, or ones tilted into the other direction - as items to articles on the relevant subjects. To do this, it would be best to give each book a library page using its ISBN, to which short comments could then be added (examples at CZ:Ref:ISBN:067976811 and CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1038/nature05453), and link to them (corresponding pages at Ecological footprint/Bibliography and Model organism/Bibliography).

I hope this helps. --Daniel Mietchen 21:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

Hi Neil, I saw that you made some edits towards a more balanced Dissociative identity disorder. To continue, consider having a look at some peer-reviewed articles that put DID in context (a good example is Dissociative disorders by John F. Kihlstrom). If you have problems finding or accessing such articles, let me know. --Daniel Mietchen 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. Though the journal does not appear to be peer reviewed here I will add it to the article. It appears to be a minority view, so I will treat it respectfully and add it to the controversy section. The DSM is the majority view and I will add a balanced quote from it related to the topic. Neil Brick 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that your mails to the psychology list did not receive any reply. As for me, DID is on the list of things to do for CZ (and I have started reading up on it), but it comes behind working on brain morphometry and related articles and reading orchid, animal and other already well-developed articles for approval. So please be patient if you receive little feedback, and continue to improve the articles, or join in improving other entries.

On your remarks above: The Annual Review journals are not peer-reviewed in the strict sense and refer to their style as "peer invited" (which includes "careful reading each chapter receives from the Production Editor and at least one member of our Editorial Committee") but I think the distinction is not crucial here, since they are only publishing reviews anyway, so all the research reported therein has already been peer reviewed (besides, taking your list as a guideline, not even Nature would count as peer-reviewed). If you use terms like minority view, please provide sources that would back this up - DSM is not the only diagnostic guideline in use, and if you are unhappy with the perspective provided by John Kihlstrom, take a look at papers by Ernest Hildegard, Elizabeth Loftus, David Speigel, Daniel Schacter, Lenore Terr and others who have published on these matters. --Daniel Mietchen 09:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The DSM is by far the predominate book used to diagnose patients. In fact, I have never heard of another book being used to diagnose patients in the field of psychology. "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is the handbook used most often in diagnosing mental disorders in the United States and internationally....The criteria and classification system of the DSM are based on the majority opinion of people who represent American mental health specialists." here.

On Ernest Hildegard, I was not able to find anything in google scholar. On David Spiegel, I found a book "Repressed Memories" with this quote "The incidence of childhood trauma in dissociative identity disorder (DID) (formerly multiple personality disorder) varies from 85% to 98%." p. II-156. He also quotes Spanos' work, who I cite in the article. In Spiegel's book, there is an interesting chapter "Intentional forgetting and voluntary thought suppression: Two potential methods for coping with childhood trauma" by W Koutstaal, DL Schacter, however from reading it I am unsure if there is a specific study backing the exact hypothesis presented. I could find nothing at google scholar on Lenore Terr and dissociative identity disorder.

Loftus has been critiqued by many. Even she has studies showing repressed memory occurrences. "Elizabeth Loftus herself has published studies showing evidence of recovered memory. The 4 January 1996 issue of Accuracy About Abuse notes: Elizabeth Loftus, high profile FMSF advocate, published a paper with colleagues on Remembering and Repressing in 1994. In a study of 105 women outpatients in a substance abuse clinic 54 % reported a history of childhood sexual abuse. 81% remembered all or part of the abuse. 19% reported they forgot the abuse for a period of time and later the memory returned. Women who remembered the abuse their whole lives reported a clearer memory, with a more detailed picture. Women who remembered the abuse their whole lives did not differ from others in terms of the violence of the abuse or whether the violence was incestuous. [Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18 (1994) 67-84.] Loftus has also discussed "motivated forgetting", and has presented the documented study of a college professor who became unable to remember a series of traumas, but after some time was able to recover those memories. Loftus remarked "after such an enormously stressful experience, many individuals wish to forget... And often their wish is granted." (Loftus, 1980/1988, p. 73)" here

"The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D. Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)

Her research has been critiqued here Lost in a Shopping Mall - A Breach of Professional Ethics.

And the idea that one can implant a traumatic memory has been critiqued here. Pezdek, K., Finger, K., and Hodge, D. (1997). Planting false childhood memories: The role of event plausibility. Psychological Science, 8(6), 437-441. here

I am hoping that the page can be moved back to main space. In my opinion, it clearly represents the majority view with a variety of scientific sources in a balanced manner, respectful of the minority one.Neil Brick 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)