|
Grex > Femme > #8: False Memory "Syndrome" - True or False? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
sidhe
|
|
response 100 of 186:
| 
Dec 12 23:29 UTC 1994 |
Well, I would like that very much. Any other votes?
A pertinent point I'd like to enter is that, while rather rare, and
probably much more common than anyone wishes to think, RA involving such
aforementioned atrocities do occur, as indeed some have produced evidence to
this point. Therefore, calling these people "loonies" somehow sits with me
rather poorly. If you wish to, that is fine, except that it does make the
rest of what you have to say sound very rough-edged and uncouth.
I know very well that this is not your intent, so please do not look
on this as an attack; it is merely an attempt to give you a different
perspective on how you are coming off to me.
Now, as twolf has said, as well as acelt, can we get back to the
subject at hand? My views, as very summarized, are as follows:
1} I do believe that some memories can indeed be fabricated.
2} I also believe that many are not fabricated, either by the
therapist, or the survivor.
3} I have no rason to even begin to believe that all false-memories, or
even
most of them, can be linked to a "Syndrome", thus I hold no faith in
the concept of a "False Memory Syndrome."
|
sidhe
|
|
response 101 of 186:
|
Dec 12 23:31 UTC 1994 |
If that last bit looks odd, this is due to my being written <!write>,
repeatedly while entering it. Sorry for the mess!
|
roz
|
|
response 102 of 186:
|
Dec 13 11:53 UTC 1994 |
One of the questions I'm most interested in is "Given that there is no
_definitive_ answer to whether a particular memory is authentic in all
details (barring corroborative evidence), what is the appropriate action
for the survivor to take towards the abuser and other family members? I'm
not completely comfortable with the recent trend to litigation or other
actions that split the family along "who believes whom" lines. But I
know so little about the area that I'd appreciate hearing the thoughts of
those who know more.
(And thanks to those who helped us move out of that rut.)
|
md
|
|
response 103 of 186:
|
Dec 13 14:36 UTC 1994 |
What rut?
|
roz
|
|
response 104 of 186:
|
Dec 13 16:14 UTC 1994 |
The "talking about our annoyances instead of the topic" rut.
|
md
|
|
response 105 of 186:
|
Dec 13 20:12 UTC 1994 |
I don't believe I participated in that rut, and for what
it's worth I think Aaron Larson steered pretty clear of it, too.
Re that awful word "loony": As I said, I never applied it
to real survivors of real abuse: they were not even the
topic of this item. I'm talking about someone who
deliberately and publicly accuses innocent people of being
murderers, rapists and child abusers. "Loony" is
inadequate, I agree. "Sick"? "Twisted"? "Cruel"? How
about "evil"? I'm open to suggestions.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 106 of 186:
|
Dec 13 23:03 UTC 1994 |
Well, now *that* is a completely different matter, michael. I agree
that the people, as you have delineated above, do deserve some title.. it
merely wasn't clear to me whom, specifically you were referring to, in
your earlier posts.
As for who <singular or plural> the rut was caused by, I'd rather not
bother with that jar of nitro-glycerin. Let us just continue our discussion.
|
twolf
|
|
response 107 of 186:
|
Dec 14 03:46 UTC 1994 |
I think we should leave who was or wasn't contributing to the rut alone.
I am sure there are probably a number of different opinions on this and
it would probably drag us right back into the same rut.
roz, you definately have a point that some people believing they are
survivors of abuse(correctly or incorrectly) as well as people who are
simply claiming to be survivors are far too quick to sue. It seems
the current American society is very quick to sue...just look at how many
lawyers are advritising on tv each day. For sake of arguement, let us saw
an actual survivor, Jan Doe, decides to sue her aunt for abusing her multiple
times as a child. For sake of arguement, let us also say the aunt is guilty.
Jan still is viewing things with a child's perspective, so atleast some of the
details will be incorrect. Furthermore, often , even if a person is guiltly,
proving it in a court of law(beyond a resonable doubt) is very difficult. It is
also very trying on all involved, it is possible to cause much more hurt then
it releaves for the survivor. The trial will cause Jan's family much pain, and
even if they compleately support her over her aunt, thenre is still a great
deal of guilt over not being able to stop the abuse sooner . Then, even if the
family believes the survivor , there is still a great deal of pain related to
a loved one doing some thing so horrid. Even in this in this purely fictional
setting, which the basic"facts" would seem to be stacked in the survivors
favor, it could still easily cause more grief then relief. Any other view
point? I would be interested in hearing them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 108 of 186:
|
Dec 14 04:18 UTC 1994 |
I don't understand why there's such confusion of different terms and the
thresholds of evidence required for various things. Is this really
intended to be a legalistic item? (If it is, forget "reasonable doubt,"
since you're talking about a civil suit in which "preponderance of
evidence" applies.)
More useful is the issue of how people should regard FMS and stuff of
that nature. If an acquaintance claims to have recently recalled past
abuse, suggesting FMS would probably be a very boorish thing to do
modulo some variations in circumstance. A conversation is not a
courtroom or a research lab.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 109 of 186:
|
Dec 14 13:27 UTC 1994 |
I've entered a new item for rut drift.
|
md
|
|
response 110 of 186:
|
Dec 14 14:25 UTC 1994 |
I'm just trying to focus on the phenomenon. I've been reading
Loftus & Ketcham (thanks again, Aaron) and I believe that
something like FMSF is desperately needed, if not exactly FMSF
itself.
I note that Loftus often uses the word "unwittingly" to describe
how therapists cause patients to remember instances of abuse
that never happened. But she's being generous. She quotes a
professor of psychiatry as tracing the problem to the "personal
motives" of some therapists. "Freud," he says, "would be
turning over in his grave if knew what these therapists have
done to oversimplify, distort and cheapen his complex theory of
the mind to suit their personal agendas." Doesn't sound awfully
"unwitting" to me.
Loftus says that in reading through the standard incest-recovery
literature (_The Courage to Heal_, et al.), she realized that
for these authors and their readers "if something *feels* real,
it *is* real." Feelings and emotions are what count, not facts
or proof. It occurred to me that this is a perfect paradigm for
this item. To anyone interested in the truth, it's like trying
to shake hands with a fog bank.
|
roz
|
|
response 111 of 186:
|
Dec 14 15:45 UTC 1994 |
The other side of the "just the facts ma'am" approach is that for
most abuse survivors, no eyewitness or physical evidence can be
found. Should that be cause for dismissing all allegations? For
all I know the "Courage to Heal" folks went overboard on validating
emotions, but there is an element of truth to the point that people's
feelings about an event are something that deserve attention as well
as the objective realities of the event. It's akin to being on a
high-dive -- no it's not really dangerous, but it sure _feels_
dangerous.
Going to courset on the other hand, needs to be absolutely based
on concrete evidence, in my opinion.
|
md
|
|
response 112 of 186:
|
Dec 14 16:30 UTC 1994 |
But the suicidal depression and other extreme symptoms seldom
occur until the patient is in therapy. The worst symptoms
associated with flase memory are "iatrogenic" - ie, caused by
the therapist.
Re #108, some of these are civil suits, but many of them involve
criminal charges and prison sentences. As to evidence, the same
professor of psychiatry mentioned above was asked by Loftus, "As
a clinician, how can you tell if a patient's memories are real
or imagined?" He answered: "Without independent corroboration,
I don't know of any way for a therapist to be absolutely sure."
Re #107, there are certainly lots of people who feel the way you
do, that we're too litigious in this country, too quick to sue
each other. I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, if
you're the victim of rape or some other kind of molestation, I
don't see how anyone could fault you for pressing charges. I
note that your example assumes that the aunt actually did what
she was accused of doing. Since the topic of this item is false
memory, we have to speculate what happens if the aunt didn't do
anything. The aunt's best option, in my opinion, would be to
hire a good lawyer and sue the therapist. The best outcome
would be to bankrupt the therapist and put him or her
permanently out of business. If and when the niece comes back
to reality, she might want to participate in the lawsuit as
well.
|
twolf
|
|
response 113 of 186:
|
Dec 14 17:04 UTC 1994 |
I do not agree with every thing in the "Courage to Heal" itself, what the book
seemed to be trying to get across, was that if a memory had a major, crippling
effect on a person's emotions, daily life and ability to interact with others
...then , even if details(perhaps many) were incorrect, the memories likely
have some basis in real events. Most importantly, the crippling side effect
are the part that must be delt with. In this view the emotional healing from
the actual event(even if they can not be clearly documented) is put before the
literal truth of the memory. Sometimes the actual events can not be
documented, and in this case, legal action is definately a bad idea, even
talking to the person suspected of the abuse might very well be a bad idea.
Part of the reason many survivors are so defensive against FMS, is more then
once, they have been directly told that what they have gone through could not
have happen, and they must be imagining it. Just for a moment, imagine you,
the reader, had been utterly violated...you try to tell several people what has
happened, to get help but are told you are hysterical and nothing has happened
, you must be imagining all thid. This , again, bares some resemblence to real
cases, but is just fiction. I am drawing from many similiar cases, some now
well documented, but this account is not meant to respesent a single, specific
case. Most people under going such an experience would later be very defensive
about something such as FMS, since it would reawaken the old terrors of being
told these things neve happened.
I am including a quote here, simplely because this woman explains the
difference between a false memory and an unprovable menory very clearly, not to
restart thereference matterial wars of earlier. Patricia Toth, interview, Sept
16, 1993" Unfounded" or "unsubstantiated" can mean that it was false, but it
can also mean a variety of other things. In most cases, child protective
services only has responsiblity for familial or caretaker abuse. If the
abuser doesn't fit into those categories, for their purposes, it's unfounded.
If you have an infantwho has gonorrhea of the throat and can't talk, with no
eyewitnesses and no confession, you can be pretty darn sure that child was
sexually abused-but you might not be able to identify the offender-and it's
unfounded. Or you might have a totally overloaded caseworker who has fifty
cases to investigate in a month, so she picks up the phone and says,"WE have a
report that you abused your child. Is that true?" And they say,"It's not
true." And the caseworker says"thank you." It's unfounded-because they don't
have the skills or resources to properly investigate. Or the report comes in,
they find the family, and the family has moved to another jurisdiction. Again
, unfounded.
One question I have, is in a culture were many people who can document
atleast some indications that abuse occured, even if it is not admissable
as evidence in court- choice to not come forward with their own stories
because of how a person coming forward is likely to be treated. And
considering , the one thing many survivors, even those who candocument it,
would say thier fondest wish was for the abuse never to have happen.
What benifit is there for some one to purposeful falsify a child abuse
case, especially an adult. I mean, especially since no survivor really
wishes to have experienced what they lived through. I am very interested
in comparing notes on this one.
The reason I have not included a list of survivors book, is because if
some one was luck enough to not have experienced abuse or not know of abuse of
a loved one directly affecting thier lives, I will not be the one to ask them
to read accounts of it. Books and other publications written for survivors ,
their councillors, and their loved ones are written for a specific audience,
and this makes them difficult for others to read. Generally, they are written
to help people who have survived serious tramua, and focus on coming to terms
with the life altering side effects
|
twolf
|
|
response 114 of 186:
|
Dec 14 17:33 UTC 1994 |
re#112 the topic is also, if false memoryexists or not. Some memories are
false, but not all, which is partly why I used that example. The sympome
worstening around the time a patient enters therapy occures uin even the
documentable cases. Often it is why the person seeks therapy, the person
feels themself falling appart. If the memory is true, but long burried, then
therapy ends up digging up all the emotions that were buried with the memory
and have been festering for years. If it was so unbelievable to be burried,
then it is no more believalbe when it resurfaces...so extreame depression is an
understandable reaction. I understand there are some untrue memories, but an
actual syndrome...I don't really think so. Actual memories of abuse are so
painful, most survivors would gladly give up a limb, if that would meam the
abuse was actually a nightmare and never happened, also, many people wish to
deny even the documentable cases, or don't deny it but will avoid the survivor
so they do not need to face up to man's inhumanity to man. Except in case were
some one is a greedy !@#@ and just wants yo sue for money...what benifit is
there in alienating yourself from your family and society (atleast in part)on
purpose? Also, since it can be very difficult for even those who can document
thier case to believe, how much more difficult must be for some one who has
false memories to convince themselves for more then a short time that fictional
abuse occured?
One last point, any therapist who purposeful, or through sloppy but well
meaning practices help a person believe they experienced a trauma they
never experienced....that burns me up so bad I have a hard time coming up
with a punishment that fits the crime. I have seroius reservations about
such a person ever councilling some one again.
|
md
|
|
response 115 of 186:
|
Dec 14 21:39 UTC 1994 |
That last point is the entire point of this item.
Re litigation, _The Courage to Heal_ urges those who believe
themselves to be survivors to sue those whom they believe to be
the perpetrators. Here's a quote:
"In my experience, nearly every client who has undertaken
this kind of suit has experienced growth, therapeutic
strengthening, and an increased sense of personal power and
self-esteem as a result of the litigation... A lot of my
clients also feel a tremendous sense of relief and victory.
They get strong by suing. They step out of the fantasy that
it didn't happen or that their parents really loved and cared
for them in a healthy way. It produces a beneficial
separation that can be a rite of passage for the survivor."
|
twolf
|
|
response 116 of 186:
|
Dec 15 00:42 UTC 1994 |
First,md, have you actually read the book in it's entirely?
the quoted text is taken from an inteviewof one attorney for adult
survivors. There is considerable text before this portion,and two
paragraphs(not small ones) dealing with the negative effects that can
be brought about by sueing. This text is from the interviews wrap up,"after
the case is settled". An earlier section of this same interview deals with the
questions and concerns this person raises with potential clients, it is a bit
long for this formate, unless specifically requested. This attorny generally
seems to be discouraging many survivors who would be retraumatised by cross
examination, or the noteable change of loosing the case. The attorney also
notes it seems to be a cathartic experience for the victum to talk about the
abuse, to the accused perpitrator and infront of more peopple then they have
been able to open up infront of before. I have a coppy of this book sitting in
front of me, and have thoughly checked it to properly address what was said.
The authors do not recommend a survivor sues. There is not even a heading about
sueing in the table of contents. The extensive resourse guide, 50 pages, has
only one page listing legal resources. The rest is devoted to organization and
literature to help the survivor deal with their experiences,therapy, support
groups, and other safe outlets.The authors have little to say about legal
actions, much of it discouraging. "
If your case was taken to court, you may have been subjected to
brutal testimony procedures, grilled by insensitive defense attorneys, or
repeatedly forced to face your abuser."
this topic is dropped very quickly to move on to move on to more useful
, or atleast more practical choice of simply finding some one to be able
to talk to and how to decide how much of these things you feel safe telling
any one. I am very curious to find out, md, where you ran across the quote you
sighted, since it was taken so far out of context?
|
roz
|
|
response 117 of 186:
|
Dec 15 12:14 UTC 1994 |
Re: the point about people experiencing more distress after they enter
therapy --
My husband is a psychologist and has often remarked that many clients who
are seeking help for many reasons "look worse before they look better" as
the counseling process progresses. I can only assume that it might be
a reaction to finally being in a safe place to be able to deal directly
with the difficulties rather than work around them all the time. But
that pattern is not exclusive to situations where sexual abuse is the
presenting problem or is the cause of the presenting problem.
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 186:
|
Dec 15 15:26 UTC 1994 |
Re #116, I haven't read the book in its entirety. The excerpt
I quoted appeared in Loftus & Ketcham.
|
twolf
|
|
response 119 of 186:
|
Dec 16 00:19 UTC 1994 |
I could draw my own conclusion,md, but i am curious about yours.
Since the quote was taken from a ,basically side article(the one from
Loftus and Ketcham) written by some one other then the co-authors. It
was seperated bfrom the text, and was included to help show different points
of view, there are other side article(that actually take up many pages
in some cases). By text, I mean main text. Also consider it was taken
out of even that context....what would this indicate about the Loftus and
Ketcham work...since they from what you seemed to be saying before, they
appear to have had to manipulate the quote from the "Courage to Heal"
in order to make it sound as if the authors were generally pro-legal action?
I would really like to comepare note on this one in case I have misinferred
something from what you said earlier.
|
md
|
|
response 120 of 186:
|
Dec 16 14:15 UTC 1994 |
I'd have to refer back to the book, twolf, which I don't have
with me at the moment. Loftus & Ketcham does a lot of tsk-tsking
at _The Courage to Heal_, and the book includes many quotes to
document and support the authors' skepticism. I think I'll pick
up a copy of _The Courage to Heal_ and make up my own mind, though.
The only thing I would say in defense of Elizabeth Loftus at this
point is that the passage she excerpted about lawsuits speaks for
itself - you can argue that it was taken out of context and that
there are all kinds of ifs, ands and buts that got left out; but
short of the next sentance saying "Just kidding!" it's hard to
imagine the context that would make the excerpt less emphatic.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 121 of 186:
|
Dec 16 15:25 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 186:
|
Dec 17 00:28 UTC 1994 |
Michael: Re "loony" -- fine. I don't feel this is a socially cceptable word.
I word describe the woman described as "insane", "troubled" or "unreliable".
"loony" is a bit too connoational. If you want to use it, though, feel free --
now that I know how you're using it, I have no (real) problem with it, or at
any rate I've voiced my dissatisfaction with it and will cease to do so.
I'm glad we're back on topic. I have nothing to add.
(Aaron, I'm ignoring you, BTW. I'm not responding to anything you say
anymore. Nyaah! :) )
|
twolf
|
|
response 123 of 186:
|
Dec 17 01:26 UTC 1994 |
Md, the thing I really want to say about that quote was it does speak for
itselfand the person who wrote it, but not for the rest of the book. Please
pick up a copy of the book, if you would like. Many I suggest that you keep in
mind that this is not a scholarly work, but a self-help for people who have
survived a traumatic experience. In the text, the healing of the
reader(usually a survivor of abuse, or atleast one who believes him/her-self
to be a survivor) , as I was saying, the individuals personal truth of their
own experience and the psycological efects are put before litteral fact of any
single case. The book makes not claims to the contrarty that I c could find.
I ask that you view it in this perspective and judge it accordingly. I
personally do not care for all the material in the text, and the tone of the
text is not for every ones' taste. Popcorn, you seem to have gotten the basic
point I was trying to bring forward. I was also trying to say the point of view
quoted is presented as seprerate from the co-authors' text. The attorney also
indidcates that if a person is able to tolerate the stresses and strains of a
trial, then legal action many be a healing experience. Personally, i feel
their are few cases in which a legal action will be benificial. A recently
abused child going to court to stop others from being adused to ome of the few
cases. 123
|
aaron
|
|
response 124 of 186:
|
Dec 17 02:02 UTC 1994 |
re #100: The "syndromal" aspect goes to how many of these memories are formed.
A person displaying neurotic symptoms (as all people do to one degree
or another) goes to a therapist, reads a book, or is otherwise exposed
to certain ideas, and comes to believe that (a) they suffered sexual
abuse as a child, (b) they repressed all memory of abuse, perhaps
substituting positive memories for those negative experiences, and
(c) that they are now in the process of "recovering" those memories
in an uncontaminated form.
re #111: There has been no dispute that the patient's present reality should
be addressed in the course of therapy. This is not to say that it
should be considered true, nor that it should be worsened.
re #113: One of the reasons falsely accused parents insist that the truth
of false memories be considered is the number of times they are
confronted with, "It had to come from somewhere."
The terms, "unfounded" and "unsubstantiated," are not synonymous.
To the extend that they are used as synonyms, that use is improper.
re #114: There are reasons why a person might confabulate memories of abuse.
See, e.g., Debbie Nathan's article, "Cry Incest," or Wassil-Grimm's
"Diagnosis for Disaster."
Many so-called "retractors" agree with your last point, and a number
of suits have been filed against therapists.
re #115 - 116: Be sure you are referring to the same edition before you
make your cross-references. CTH has backtracked to some degree from
its earlier positions.
re #122: Should I be impressed?
re #123: Your problems with CTH may be rooted in its authors, who aren't
mental health professionals. The books you find more to your liking
may be those whose authors have more knowledge and more insight into
the actual mechanisms involved.
|