remembering childhood abuse

Post Reply New Topic

-What are your sources?
-My knowledge also comes from other sources
-I never claimed to be knowledgeable, instead referring to the knowledge of the experts themselves.
-The clinicians have a financial interest to pretend that repressed memories exist, much like "doctors" in alternative medicine. There does not seem to be such a financial interest in the case of those denying the existence of repressed memories.

-I never called anyone names until someone said "I was making an ass" of myself.

-Most importantly, assuming repressed memories exist, there is no reliable way to distinguish repressed ones from constructed ones, especially memories concerning hypothetical events that would have occurred many years ago, and for which there is no physical evidence.

Unfortunately, there is a huge financial interest underlying the sudden concern about whether recovered memories are possible or not: when cases of child sexual abuse started hitting the courts, expert witnesses started being called. Expert witnesses, particularly "good" ones, command large fees. When people of means stand accused of heinous crimes, whether or not they are guilty of those crimes, they are concerned, first and foremost, with raising reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. They do that by having their own expert witnesses. Studies disproving the concept of recovered memories were very useful in that. In law, the burden is not to negate the possibility to a scientific certainty, but merely to raise reasonable doubt. If a defense attorney could raise reasonable doubt about the veracity of the testimony of the alleged victim, the defendant would be acquitted. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means there wasn't enough proof. It doesn't even mean there was no evidence - it means there wasn't enough evidence.

I am glad to see that you are willing to entertain the hypothetical possibility that repressed memories could occur. I agree that there is no reliable way to distinguish, 100 percent of the time, repressed memories from constructed ones. As with almost anything where one is relying on the statements of other people, one has to base it on the information that person gives you, along with the experience you have and your ability to judge veracity: sometimes you'll be pretty sure, sometimes you won't be. Most of the time, though, it doesn't really matter. If someone is hurting and in distress, that person needs assistance. Most recovered memories are not the stuff of courtroom drama, and the issue of physical evidence is not relevant. The underlying needs and wounds are what require attention.

btw, as to sources, there are many - I just don't have time right now to go dig them up. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for you to find plenty, if you wanted to.

You also have symptoms that need to be examined by a professional. There is nothing scary about a psychiatrist. There is a large body of literature in this field, and there are a number of people who specialize in these areas. I know what your description says to me, but I am not licenced to practice medicne.

However, I'm not so concerned about the rape-phantasy (not that I totally understand it, but you're not alone) as the eating problems. Lots of people have rape phantasies, I'm not going to say it's normal, but you're not alone. Not that many people have eating disorders.

As to "repressed" memories. That's a complicated field. You're lucky if that's all it is. You'd be in far worse shape if you had dissociative disorders, and if left untreated, what you've probably got could turn into that.

Don't worry about the rape phantasy. Have fun. Worry about the eating disorder. It's a symptom of something much more serious.

If you live in the Mid West, I know someone (psychiatrist) very good. If not, good luck.

Oh, yeah, sorry, guys aren't supposed to be commenting in here.

Well, if it's a problem where a guy has some insight, that's too bad.

Good luck. Get in and see someone.

Btdt

Problem is:
(1) Those arguing the existence of repressed memories also have the incentives offered by the clinical setting surrounding the patient—an incentive not held by repressed memory skeptics.
(2) Those arguing for the existence of repressed memories also have a financial incentive to support legal cases.



You could just as easily say that for any trial involving any issue regarding testimony.
There’s a good reason why a certain threshold of evidence must be met before convicting someone, namely to protect the rights of the innocent from being convicted.

If letting some molesters off the hook is what it takes to prevent innocent people from being convicted, then so be it.



No, you really don’t understand. I don’t dismiss diagnoses of repressed memories because they are not 100% reliable—that would be unreasonable. I reject them because (1) there’s no evidence for their very existence and, most importantly, (2) there couldn’t be ANY reliability when distinguishing repressed memories from constructed ones. The reliability (assuming it had any) of the diagnosis would be so low as to be indistinguishable from absolutely no reliability whatsoever.


How could you possibly be sure at all? You’re talking about events that, assuming they happened, would have happened many years ago. The only “evidence” would be testimony, which itself could be the product of fabricated memories. The “evidence” itself does not qualify as evidence in this case.


Fine, if someone already has traumatic memories, false or not, then they need to be dealt with.
Problem is:
(1)They should not be dealt with in a way that can create false memories, nor should the patient try to recall childhood moments of trauma.
(2) That is all beside the point anyways. I’m not talking about care for the psychologically troubled; I’m talking about the rights of the innocent and the need to protect them from prosecution.



Same to you

I'm in northeastern WI...if the person is somewhere around there, please pm me.

Also, I have no issue with guys posting. Thank you for your help.



Also, Jat and IpsoRandomo...while I support hearty debate as much as anyone, I'm freaking out plenty about what I may or may not remember. Name-calling and expletives really aren't helping, just stressing more. I'm thankful for any thoughts on the subject, opinions, points of view, but please please please be nice.

Okay, I'll be nice. I just enjoy a good debate.

I have recovered memories, and I can tell you that if they're your memories, it's pretty easy to tell if they're real or not. In my experience, the memories are fresh, like I'm experiencing them consciously for the first time (probably true). It's like they grab me by the throat and throw me to the wall. I do not have the option of telling them they are fantasy - they won't let me. Although I do know of some cases where people do their best to discount them anyways, afterwards, when they lose their freshness (as memories always do), because they don't want to know.

If they're somebody else's memories, you have to go by how much you trust that person's judgement.

As far as court cases go, a while back in Canada, all those who were convicted on the basis of repressed memories were given the option of having their cases reopened. Only ten prisoners came forward, and the most vocal of these was not convicted on the basis of recovered memories in the first place - his victims had remembered all along and they corroborated each other's stories. As a result, a national law organization publicly stated that maybe there's such thing as repressed memories after all.

How do you know that “freshness” corresponds with true memories?
In other words, how do you know that a memory is real just because it’s “fresh”?
You seem to be begging the question.
Maybe they only seem fresh because you believe them so strongly.


Except we’re talking about hypothetical events that could occurred long ago. There’s too much room for bias.



-Only ten probably came forward because they were pessimistic about being released, having been convicted in the first place.
-Ten prisoners, but out of how many convicted due to testimony of repressed memories?
- had remembered all along: That’s not the same as repressed memories. Repressed memories are not “remembered all along”—they are forgotten due to trauma then later recalled, assuming, of course, that they even exist.
What have I problem with is people suddenly acquiring new memories and then making accusations based on said memories, which could easily be fake.
-Being in a situation in which there is evidence to convict someone could easily allow people to convince themselves that the events happened.
-I need to check your facts since I’ve never heard of this. I’d also need to know what organization you’re referring to.