User:Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5/sandbox

By WLU - Responding to your substantive point, it is predicated on the assertion that your opinions represent the mainstream consensus of experts on DID. I do not believe you have backed up this assertion, and in fact the number and publication views of those who explicitly disbelieve the traumagenic hypothesis suggests, as I have said before, that either the traumagenic hypothesis is not the mainstream view, or that there is a substantial minority of scholars publishing their doubts in peer reviewed journals - and therefore discussion of their points on this page is perfectly legitimate. (note to self: get a copy of the DSM-IV-TR)

Two questions here:

What is the mainstream consensus re: traumagenisis?

Answer: Where does the consensus model come from? It has to be from the American Psychiatric Association (who develops and publishes the DSM, of course), and the research specialists in the field of dissociative disorders. Where else would you get it? Does this really need to be addressed more? This paper presents the 3 MODELS that are considered by the APA. All 3 should be presented on the WP DID page.

How much weight is to be given to dissenting views?

Answer: Now to put this fringe/minority POV finally to rest I present the following:

1.) The world's top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations.

2.) There is NO empirical support for the SGM. The mainstream expert consensus does not agree with the minority/fringe POV of SCM at all!

3.) It is the job of Wikipedia to summarize the consensus model of any field, and the ISSTD has done that for us in their guidelines 2011 REVIEW paper commissioned by the DSM-5 work group, and the current edition of the DSM. In NONE of these is there any mention of the SGM as credible in anyway. There is no other consensus. This document simply has no competition. A significant number of the people authoring these guidelines are involved in the DSM-5 anxiety, obsessive-compulsive spectrum, posttraumatic, and the dissociative disorders work group or the research review commissioned by this work group.

4.) In NONE of these is there any mention of the SGM as credible in anyway. Minority/fringe opinions are of no importance at Wikipedia.

5.) WP Rules that I think are important here:

"Fringe opinions simply are not competitors with the professional consensus."
"Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown."

Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12:115–187, 2011 Copyright© International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation ISSN: 1529-9732 print/1529-9740 online DOI: 10.1080/15299732.2011.537247

Notes from the 2011 Review written by Reference: 2011 REVISED Adult Guidelines Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 guidelines written by top people in the field of DID: Chu, Dell, van der Hart, Cardena, Barach, Somer, Loewenstein, Brand, Golston, Courtois, Bowman, Classen, Dorahy, Sar, Gelinas, Fine, Paulsen, Kluft, Dalenbert, Jacobson-Ley, Nijenhuis, Boon, Chefetz, Middleton, Ross, Howell, Goodwin, Coons, Frankel, Steele, Gold, Gast, Young and Twomby.with page numbers:

"They consistently provide evidence that DID is a valid cross-cultural diagnosis that has validity comparable to or exceeding that of other accepted psychiatric diagnoses" (p.116)

"The current revision of the Guidelines focuses specifically on the treatment of dissociative identity disorder (DID) and those forms of dissociative disorder not otherwise specified (DDNOS) that are similar to DID. It is intended as a practical guide to the management of adult patients and represents a synthesis of current scientific knowledge and informed clinical practice." (p.116)

"Accurate clinical diagnosis affords early and appropriate treatment for the DD. The difficulties in diagnosing DID result primarily from lack of education among clinicians about dissociation, dissociative disorders, and the effects of psychological trauma, as well as from clinician bias. This leads to limited clinical suspicion about dissociative disorders and misconceptions about their clinical presentation." (p.117)

"Moreover, because most clinicians receive little or no training in dissociation and DID, they have difficulty recognizing the signs and symptoms of DID even when they occur spontaneously." (p.118)

"The DID patient is a single person who experiences himself or herself as having separate alternate identities that have relative psychological autonomy from one another. At various times, these subjective identities may take executive control of the person’s body and behavior and/or inﬂuence his or her experience and behavior from “within.” Taken together, all of the alternate identities make up the identity or personality of the human being with DID." (p.120)

Note: We are using "personality state", perhaps we should use identity state instead. "Many terms have been developed to describe the DID patient’s subjective sense of self-states or identities. These include personality, personality state, self-state, disaggregate self-state, alter, alter personality, alternate identity, part, part of the mind, part of the self, dissociative part of the personality, and entity, among others (see Van der Hart (this would be ANP and EP) & Dorahy, 2009). Because the DSM–IV–TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000a) uses the term alternate identity, this term is used in the Guidelines for consistency." (p.121)

First Etiological Model presented

"...alternate identities result from the inability of many traumatized children to develop a uniﬁed sense of self that is maintained across various behavioral states, particularly if the traumatic exposure ﬁrst occurs before the age of 5. These difficulties often occur in the context of relational or attachment disruption that may precede and set the stage for abuse and the development of dissociative coping." "Fragmentation and encapsulation of traumatic experiences may serve to protect relationships with important (though inadequate or abusive) caregivers and allow for more normal maturation in other developmental areas, such as intellectual, interpersonal, and artistic endeavors. In this way, early life dissociation may serve as a type of developmental resiliency factor despite the severe psychiatric disturbances that characterize DID patients." "Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their effects on the child’s overall development. "...disturbed caregiver–child attachments and parenting further disrupt the child’s ability to integrate experiences" Secondary structuring of these discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence, and adulthood." (p.122)

Another etiological model

...posits that the development of DID requires the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c)secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and needing to ﬁnd his or her own ways of moderating distress. The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators, significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme withdrawal into fantasy, among others." (p.122-123)

Structural Dissociation of the Personality

"This theory suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense. Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in response to life threat, such as ﬁght/ﬂight, not to the psychodynamic notion of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional emotional parts of the personality." (p.123)

"In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise from a previously mature, uniﬁed mind or “core personality” that becomes shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond) during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities. (p.123)