Question:
The reason why this interview is so important is because Dr. Herbert Spiegel is the last known living professional who treated Sybil. Flora Rheta Schreiber (the author and close friend of Sybil’s) has died, as well as Dr. Cornelia C. Wilbur (Sybil’s Psychoanalyst) Dr. Wilbur died in 1992, I don’t know what year Schreiber died in.
I don’t consider the interview very important at all and it’s not bc I am a multiple but bc there is no one, other than Sybil, who is alive to refute anything he presented in the interview about Sybil, Wilbur or Schreiber. Notable observations for me are these: ** Spiegel repeatedly states that he did not conduct therapy but only worked with Sybil using hypnosis. Anyone today, claiming to have a multiple in their caseload and having only used hypnosis would be highly scrutinized. ** Bc he never conducted therapy and never worked with Sybil (other than the stated 3 sessions while being a "surrogate T" as a client in the absence of hypnosis) it is likely that he never fully understood nor witnessed the multiplicity. ** He is non-descriptive about the frequency of his contacts with Sybil and himself, fails to disclose the date in which he began seeing her which would be available to him in his case notes. ** His character assasinations of Wilbur/Schreiber are not open to dispute and therefore, highly suspect. ** He lends no creedence at all to the possibility that Wilbur may have approached him with Sybil as a schizophrenic bc at that time, multiplicity was not a recognized condition by the psychiatric community (not in the DSM) and perhaps, she may have been attempting to keep his observations as unbiased (uninfluenced) and that she may have been attempting to protect herself professionally. ** He does not fairly represent his own methods of age-regression as also being highly scrutinized by the psychiatric community as fallible, yet he willingly exclaims that age-regression done and personality presentation witnessed by Wilbur as being suspect to being iatrogenic. ** His own claim to Wilbur’s iatrogenic induction in respects to Sybil making statements about Wilbur wanting her to be "Helen" are again, not open to dispute by Sybil. A fact, that I am sure he is aware of – that Sybil is not going to come out into the open and expose her true identity. Therefore, he is pretty open – has the entire discussion to his liking , interpretation, inference, slander, etc. ** He claims Sybil’s recanting as indicative of T coersion versus giving any balanced perspective that ab*se victims often recant and attempt to hold the "good parent" in their eyes. He gives no creedence to what this behavior speaks to as a coping mechanism of survivors. ** How he can candidly dismiss the possibility that Sybil’s mother could be "intentionally cruel" is beyond me entirely and flies in the face of many documented cases of such occurences. ** His contention that Wilbur’s work with Sybil was based on Freud’s "causation" theory (cause-effect-conflict) is not as "groundless" as he makes it sound. Cause-effect relationships have been noted for centuries. ** He claims no "credit" given in the book bc he would not go along with the dx of DID. On one hand, he is correct in not "joining" since the ~context~ of his work was not therapeutic. On the other hand, he didn’t want to be associated with the book, states it as such and then appears to want to explain and blame it away on Wilbur/Schreiber. He also lends no possible motive on his part, to not wanting to be associated with a condition not yet recognized in the DSM and his own need to protect his professional standing. ** All of his speculations about motivation underlying the treatment as being connected to the finishing of the book and it’s "sellability" is exactly that, speculation and therefore, groundless. His statement about Wilbur making a statement to this as being the motive is wide open bc again, there is no Wilbur to dispute him. ** His statements about "fusions" taking place once the monies have run out and that treatment is only available to promote this "hysteria" when monies are available is inference and speculation given without the benefit of empirical data to support it. ** Why he considers the "quasi-familial" connection between Wilbur/Schreiber/Sybil as an "artificial bond" is beyond me. He doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes the connection as "artificial". He does give the connection some creedence in stating that it prolly benefitted Sybil – giving context to her histrionic constellation and need for security. ** He states he felt "pressed to put it in print now" and I have to wonder what his motivations are? Chronologically, the book was released in 1972 (he could have spoken up then and didn’t – waited 25 years. The DSM included it in 1980 and revised the condition in 1994. Wilbur d*es in 1992 and Schreiber is d*ad – all attempts to reveal the identity of Sybil have failed and he is bound by confidentiality not to reveal – so the playing field is wide open for him to gain notoriety for being the only last known professional. ** His last, closing statement about ppl who profess to be multiples is so completely gross, misleading, discriminatory and close-minded that I am held in absolute awe that he could say it so openly and not hold a moment’s hesitation in doing so. ** And lastly, he is the father of David Spiegel, one who has written extensively on multiplicity and I have to wonder, really wonder, why it is that when talk shows or news shows speak on the subject of multiplicity and it’s validity, they always seem to present this f*ther-son combo. As for the author of the article, it is clear that he holds a bias and was interviewing to fulfill a particular agenda. His statements about Wilbur being a "c*lt figure within the MPD movement" is outrageous. He fails to lend credit to the condition being recognized, though unnamed, back in the late 1800’s. He fails to give creedence to Freud’s/Breur’s own observation who then termed it "hysteria" (a term which has remained in the eyes of many since). He fails to report that Freud’s "s*d*ction theory" was later recanted by Freud, who came forward that he was influenced by the times and devised the s*d*ction theory versus state that what was directly linked to his patients issues was s*x*al ab*se and child ab*se that had happened in lives of his patients. He poorly presents the inclusion of MPD in the DSM as being the work of Putnam, Braun and Kluft by not disclosing the process in which the APA concludes the validity of a condition. Imo, unfair representation. I fail to see how ppl suffering from DID have now become "a major thr*at to mental health" unless he is referring to child ab*se but even then, it makes no sense at all. I agree with about 80% of what Dr. Spiegel says in this interview.
What’s the 20% that you do? He brings up some interesting ideas that made me think. Dr. Spiegel, to add to his creditability worked with soldiers in World War II who suffered from shell shock.
So, he recognizes PTSD. Big whoopie! Doesn’t take a genius gene to figure that one out imo! I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder.
Ahem…DID is a dissociative condition. Ever heard of the dissociative spectrum? Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms.
On a spectrum, of course…meaning intensity, frequency, duration and experience. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it.
Well, these are my thoughts. I have more but this could turn into a novel if I gave historical, social, personal and political context. : o) If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them.
Well gee, I have several but since I just kept the article without retaining the URL, I may not. I am sorry for the poor spelling, writing, and as always the poor grammer, but I have blacked out for at least a week. I came too and didn’t even recognize my own tooth brush.
: o) Not a problem for me. Reading and typing with blurry vision was though! : o) Sierra of TN — "Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned." (Rules for Being Human)
Response:
Thanx andregide for this reference. Interesting. I feel it should be made clear to people that this article has alot of negative things to say about the validity of most DID dxs – Spiegel calls them an hysteric reaction to hysteria. He also dismantles Sybil’s dx. Fair’s fair, yes? Lilya. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sybil- – The Making of a Disease: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Spiegel This interview with Dr. Spiegel can be found on Christian Perrring’s Web Page. The address is http://www.uky.edu/~cperring/ I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them.
Response:
Sybil- – The Making of a Disease: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Spiegel This interview with Dr. Spiegel can be found on Christian Perrring’s Web Page. The address is http://www.uky.edu/~cperring/ At this address you will call up 24 web pages belonging to Professor Perring. The page you want is titled Christian Perring’s Web Page. It has a tan background, with the top heading: University of Kentucky Department of Philosophy Christian Perring’s Web Page Metapsychology The date of the page is: Document date 12 March 1998. Scroll down till you hit the Links Then go to the New York Review of Books articles and select the one about Sybil. This interview took place in May 1995 in Dr. Herbert Spiegel’s New York City office. The author (and interviewer) is Mikkel Borch – Jacobsen. The reason why this interview is so important is because Dr. Herbert Spiegel is the last known living professional who treated Sybil. Flora Rheta Schreiber (the author and close friend of Sybil’s) has died, as well as Dr. Cornelia C. Wilbur (Sybil’s Psychoanalyst) Dr. Wilbur died in 1992, I don’t know what year Schreiber died in. I agree with about 80% of what Dr. Spiegel says in this interview. He brings up some interesting ideas that made me think. Dr. Spiegel, to add to his creditability worked with soldiers in World War II who suffered from shell shock. I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them. I am sorry for the poor spelling, writing, and as always the poor grammer, but I have blacked out for at least a week. I came too and didn’t even recognize my own tooth brush. andregide
Response:
Sierra, Im working on my finals so I can go into details but your response helped me way more than the article did. A.C. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reason why this interview is so important is because Dr. Herbert Spiegel is the last known living professional who treated Sybil. Flora Rheta Schreiber (the author and close friend of Sybil’s) has died, as well as Dr. Cornelia C. Wilbur (Sybil’s Psychoanalyst) Dr. Wilbur died in 1992, I don’t know what year Schreiber died in. I don’t consider the interview very important at all and it’s not bc I am a multiple but bc there is no one, other than Sybil, who is alive to refute anything he presented in the interview about Sybil, Wilbur or Schreiber. Notable observations for me are these: ** Spiegel repeatedly states that he did not conduct therapy but only worked with Sybil using hypnosis. Anyone today, claiming to have a multiple in their caseload and having only used hypnosis would be highly scrutinized. ** Bc he never conducted therapy and never worked with Sybil (other than the stated 3 sessions while being a "surrogate T" as a client in the absence of hypnosis) it is likely that he never fully understood nor witnessed the multiplicity. ** He is non-descriptive about the frequency of his contacts with Sybil and himself, fails to disclose the date in which he began seeing her which would be available to him in his case notes. ** His character assasinations of Wilbur/Schreiber are not open to dispute and therefore, highly suspect. ** He lends no creedence at all to the possibility that Wilbur may have approached him with Sybil as a schizophrenic bc at that time, multiplicity was not a recognized condition by the psychiatric community (not in the DSM) and perhaps, she may have been attempting to keep his observations as unbiased (uninfluenced) and that she may have been attempting to protect herself professionally. ** He does not fairly represent his own methods of age-regression as also being highly scrutinized by the psychiatric community as fallible, yet he willingly exclaims that age-regression done and personality presentation witnessed by Wilbur as being suspect to being iatrogenic. ** His own claim to Wilbur’s iatrogenic induction in respects to Sybil making statements about Wilbur wanting her to be "Helen" are again, not open to dispute by Sybil. A fact, that I am sure he is aware of – that Sybil is not going to come out into the open and expose her true identity. Therefore, he is pretty open – has the entire discussion to his liking , interpretation, inference, slander, etc. ** He claims Sybil’s recanting as indicative of T coersion versus giving any balanced perspective that ab*se victims often recant and attempt to hold the "good parent" in their eyes. He gives no creedence to what this behavior speaks to as a coping mechanism of survivors. ** How he can candidly dismiss the possibility that Sybil’s mother could be "intentionally cruel" is beyond me entirely and flies in the face of many documented cases of such occurences. ** His contention that Wilbur’s work with Sybil was based on Freud’s "causation" theory (cause-effect-conflict) is not as "groundless" as he makes it sound. Cause-effect relationships have been noted for centuries. ** He claims no "credit" given in the book bc he would not go along with the dx of DID. On one hand, he is correct in not "joining" since the ~context~ of his work was not therapeutic. On the other hand, he didn’t want to be associated with the book, states it as such and then appears to want to explain and blame it away on Wilbur/Schreiber. He also lends no possible motive on his part, to not wanting to be associated with a condition not yet recognized in the DSM and his own need to protect his professional standing. ** All of his speculations about motivation underlying the treatment as being connected to the finishing of the book and it’s "sellability" is exactly that, speculation and therefore, groundless. His statement about Wilbur making a statement to this as being the motive is wide open bc again, there is no Wilbur to dispute him. ** His statements about "fusions" taking place once the monies have run out and that treatment is only available to promote this "hysteria" when monies are available is inference and speculation given without the benefit of empirical data to support it. ** Why he considers the "quasi-familial" connection between Wilbur/Schreiber/Sybil as an "artificial bond" is beyond me. He doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes the connection as "artificial". He does give the connection some creedence in stating that it prolly benefitted Sybil – giving context to her histrionic constellation and need for security. ** He states he felt "pressed to put it in print now" and I have to wonder what his motivations are? Chronologically, the book was released in 1972 (he could have spoken up then and didn’t – waited 25 years. The DSM included it in 1980 and revised the condition in 1994. Wilbur d*es in 1992 and Schreiber is d*ad – all attempts to reveal the identity of Sybil have failed and he is bound by confidentiality not to reveal – so the playing field is wide open for him to gain notoriety for being the only last known professional. ** His last, closing statement about ppl who profess to be multiples is so completely gross, misleading, discriminatory and close-minded that I am held in absolute awe that he could say it so openly and not hold a moment’s hesitation in doing so. ** And lastly, he is the father of David Spiegel, one who has written extensively on multiplicity and I have to wonder, really wonder, why it is that when talk shows or news shows speak on the subject of multiplicity and it’s validity, they always seem to present this f*ther-son combo. As for the author of the article, it is clear that he holds a bias and was interviewing to fulfill a particular agenda. His statements about Wilbur being a "c*lt figure within the MPD movement" is outrageous. He fails to lend credit to the condition being recognized, though unnamed, back in the late 1800’s. He fails to give creedence to Freud’s/Breur’s own observation who then termed it "hysteria" (a term which has remained in the eyes of many since). He fails to report that Freud’s "s*d*ction theory" was later recanted by Freud, who came forward that he was influenced by the times and devised the s*d*ction theory versus state that what was directly linked to his patients issues was s*x*al ab*se and child ab*se that had happened in lives of his patients. He poorly presents the inclusion of MPD in the DSM as being the work of Putnam, Braun and Kluft by not disclosing the process in which the APA concludes the validity of a condition. Imo, unfair representation. I fail to see how ppl suffering from DID have now become "a major thr*at to mental health" unless he is referring to child ab*se but even then, it makes no sense at all. I agree with about 80% of what Dr. Spiegel says in this interview. What’s the 20% that you do? He brings up some interesting ideas that made me think. Dr. Spiegel, to add to his creditability worked with soldiers in World War II who suffered from shell shock. So, he recognizes PTSD. Big whoopie! Doesn’t take a genius gene to figure that one out imo! I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Ahem…DID is a dissociative condition. Ever heard of the dissociative spectrum? Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms. On a spectrum, of course…meaning intensity, frequency, duration and experience. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. Well, these are my thoughts. I have more but this could turn into a novel if I gave historical, social, personal and political context. : o) If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them. Well gee, I have several but since I just kept the article without retaining the URL, I may not. I am sorry for the poor spelling, writing, and as always the poor grammer, but I have blacked out for at least a week. I came too and didn’t even recognize my own tooth brush. : o) Not a problem for me. Reading and typing with blurry vision was though! : o) Sierra of TN — "Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned." (Rules for Being Human)
– You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free and that should scare the cr*p out my parents!
Response:
Hello A.C., Sierra, Im working on my finals so I can go into details
Boy do I ~ever~ know this time!!! I wish you well on your finals!!! but your response helped me way more than the article did.
*blushing* Thank you, A.C. I’m touched. Sierra of TN – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reason why this interview is so important is because Dr. Herbert Spiegel is the last known living professional who treated Sybil. Flora Rheta Schreiber (the author and close friend of Sybil’s) has died, as well as Dr. Cornelia C. Wilbur (Sybil’s Psychoanalyst) Dr. Wilbur died in 1992, I don’t know what year Schreiber died in. I don’t consider the interview very important at all and it’s not bc I am a multiple but bc there is no one, other than Sybil, who is alive to refute anything he presented in the interview about Sybil, Wilbur or Schreiber. Notable observations for me are these: ** Spiegel repeatedly states that he did not conduct therapy but only worked with Sybil using hypnosis. Anyone today, claiming to have a multiple in their caseload and having only used hypnosis would be highly scrutinized. ** Bc he never conducted therapy and never worked with Sybil (other than the stated 3 sessions while being a "surrogate T" as a client in the absence of hypnosis) it is likely that he never fully understood nor witnessed the multiplicity. ** He is non-descriptive about the frequency of his contacts with Sybil and himself, fails to disclose the date in which he began seeing her which would be available to him in his case notes. ** His character assasinations of Wilbur/Schreiber are not open to dispute and therefore, highly suspect. ** He lends no creedence at all to the possibility that Wilbur may have approached him with Sybil as a schizophrenic bc at that time, multiplicity was not a recognized condition by the psychiatric community (not in the DSM) and perhaps, she may have been attempting to keep his observations as unbiased (uninfluenced) and that she may have been attempting to protect herself professionally. ** He does not fairly represent his own methods of age-regression as also being highly scrutinized by the psychiatric community as fallible, yet he willingly exclaims that age-regression done and personality presentation witnessed by Wilbur as being suspect to being iatrogenic. ** His own claim to Wilbur’s iatrogenic induction in respects to Sybil making statements about Wilbur wanting her to be "Helen" are again, not open to dispute by Sybil. A fact, that I am sure he is aware of – that Sybil is not going to come out into the open and expose her true identity. Therefore, he is pretty open – has the entire discussion to his liking , interpretation, inference, slander, etc. ** He claims Sybil’s recanting as indicative of T coersion versus giving any balanced perspective that ab*se victims often recant and attempt to hold the "good parent" in their eyes. He gives no creedence to what this behavior speaks to as a coping mechanism of survivors. ** How he can candidly dismiss the possibility that Sybil’s mother could be "intentionally cruel" is beyond me entirely and flies in the face of many documented cases of such occurences. ** His contention that Wilbur’s work with Sybil was based on Freud’s "causation" theory (cause-effect-conflict) is not as "groundless" as he makes it sound. Cause-effect relationships have been noted for centuries. ** He claims no "credit" given in the book bc he would not go along with the dx of DID. On one hand, he is correct in not "joining" since the ~context~ of his work was not therapeutic. On the other hand, he didn’t want to be associated with the book, states it as such and then appears to want to explain and blame it away on Wilbur/Schreiber. He also lends no possible motive on his part, to not wanting to be associated with a condition not yet recognized in the DSM and his own need to protect his professional standing. ** All of his speculations about motivation underlying the treatment as being connected to the finishing of the book and it’s "sellability" is exactly that, speculation and therefore, groundless. His statement about Wilbur making a statement to this as being the motive is wide open bc again, there is no Wilbur to dispute him. ** His statements about "fusions" taking place once the monies have run out and that treatment is only available to promote this "hysteria" when monies are available is inference and speculation given without the benefit of empirical data to support it. ** Why he considers the "quasi-familial" connection between Wilbur/Schreiber/Sybil as an "artificial bond" is beyond me. He doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes the connection as "artificial". He does give the connection some creedence in stating that it prolly benefitted Sybil – giving context to her histrionic constellation and need for security. ** He states he felt "pressed to put it in print now" and I have to wonder what his motivations are? Chronologically, the book was released in 1972 (he could have spoken up then and didn’t – waited 25 years. The DSM included it in 1980 and revised the condition in 1994. Wilbur d*es in 1992 and Schreiber is d*ad – all attempts to reveal the identity of Sybil have failed and he is bound by confidentiality not to reveal – so the playing field is wide open for him to gain notoriety for being the only last known professional. ** His last, closing statement about ppl who profess to be multiples is so completely gross, misleading, discriminatory and close-minded that I am held in absolute awe that he could say it so openly and not hold a moment’s hesitation in doing so. ** And lastly, he is the father of David Spiegel, one who has written extensively on multiplicity and I have to wonder, really wonder, why it is that when talk shows or news shows speak on the subject of multiplicity and it’s validity, they always seem to present this f*ther-son combo. As for the author of the article, it is clear that he holds a bias and was interviewing to fulfill a particular agenda. His statements about Wilbur being a "c*lt figure within the MPD movement" is outrageous. He fails to lend credit to the condition being recognized, though unnamed, back in the late 1800’s. He fails to give creedence to Freud’s/Breur’s own observation who then termed it "hysteria" (a term which has remained in the eyes of many since). He fails to report that Freud’s "s*d*ction theory" was later recanted by Freud, who came forward that he was influenced by the times and devised the s*d*ction theory versus state that what was directly linked to his patients issues was s*x*al ab*se and child ab*se that had happened in lives of his patients. He poorly presents the inclusion of MPD in the DSM as being the work of Putnam, Braun and Kluft by not disclosing the process in which the APA concludes the validity of a condition. Imo, unfair representation. I fail to see how ppl suffering from DID have now become "a major thr*at to mental health" unless he is referring to child ab*se but even then, it makes no sense at all. I agree with about 80% of what Dr. Spiegel says in this interview. What’s the 20% that you don’t? He brings up some interesting ideas that made me think. Dr. Spiegel, to add to his creditability worked with soldiers in World War II who suffered from shell shock. So, he recognizes PTSD. Big whoopie! Doesn’t take a genius gene to figure that one out imo! I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Ahem…DID is a dissociative condition. Ever heard of the dissociative spectrum? Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms. On a spectrum, of course…meaning intensity, frequency, duration and experience. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. Well, these are my thoughts. I have more but this could turn into a novel if I gave historical, social, personal and political context. : o) If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them. Well gee, I have several but since I just kept the article without retaining the URL, I may not. I am sorry for the poor spelling, writing, and as always the poor grammer, but I have blacked out for at least a week. I came too and didn’t even recognize my own tooth brush. : o) Not a problem for me. Reading and typing with blurry vision was though! : o) Sierra of TN — You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free and that should scare the cr*p out my parents!
– "Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned." (Rules for Being Human)
Response:
Hi Lilya, Thanx andregide for this reference. Interesting.
Hmmm. A generous assessment IMO. I feel it should be made clear to people that this article has alot of negative things to say about the validity of most DID dxs – Spiegel calls them an hysteric reaction to hysteria. He also dismantles Sybil’s dx.
I think Sierra did a good job of pointing out inadequacies with the article itself as well as Dr Spiegel’s conclusions and his presentation of them. I agree with _some_ of what Spiegel says about MPD _in some cases_ (and BTW I’m not diagnosed with anything and don’t think of myself as multiple and don’t think MPD is a wise term to use). But his gross generalisations are silly, his lack of historical reference and context is misleading and his concluding statements are both insulting and pathetically illogical in the face of simple facts – rub the neurons together Herbie, warm them up a bit and you’ll get rid of those cramps. Another interesting article whioh presents various perspectives on ‘is it real’ can be found at: http://slt.pobox.com/revenge/mpd.html This article has some flaws too but is at least somewhat balanced and compassionate. Fair’s fair, yes?
Would be if it was. Lilya.
And Hi andregide, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sybil- – The Making of a Disease: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Spiegel This interview with Dr. Spiegel can be found on Christian Perrring’s Web Page. The address is http://www.uky.edu/~cperring/ I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms.
I don’t know what the DSM-IV says but my understanding was that MPD is now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder, one of several disorders spread across a spectrum with different categories defined by (among other things) severity of dissociation and degree of memory loss. DID, where there is the most clear-cut distinction of ‘alters’, is the most extreme dissociative disorder on this spectrum. Thus DID certainly shares symptoms with other dissociative disorders Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them.
See above. What I think of this article is that it is surprisingly poor in terms other than simple presentation of rather incoherent opinions which beg questioning. The interviewer did not ask even the most simple skeptical questions so I was disappointed. While I think there are kernels of truth in some of his opinions Spiegel came across to me as a bit bitter and foolish overall and his information about ‘Sybil’ (the person, the book, the therapeutic process) didn’t strike me as particularly convincing. Thanks anyway though. Mick.
Response:
you go girl! :) choddie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reason why this interview is so important is because Dr. Herbert Spiegel is the last known living professional who treated Sybil. Flora Rheta Schreiber (the author and close friend of Sybil’s) has died, as well as Dr. Cornelia C. Wilbur (Sybil’s Psychoanalyst) Dr. Wilbur died in 1992, I don’t know what year Schreiber died in. I don’t consider the interview very important at all and it’s not bc I am a multiple but bc there is no one, other than Sybil, who is alive to refute anything he presented in the interview about Sybil, Wilbur or Schreiber. Notable observations for me are these: ** Spiegel repeatedly states that he did not conduct therapy but only worked with Sybil using hypnosis. Anyone today, claiming to have a multiple in their caseload and having only used hypnosis would be highly scrutinized. ** Bc he never conducted therapy and never worked with Sybil (other than the stated 3 sessions while being a "surrogate T" as a client in the absence of hypnosis) it is likely that he never fully understood nor witnessed the multiplicity. ** He is non-descriptive about the frequency of his contacts with Sybil and himself, fails to disclose the date in which he began seeing her which would be available to him in his case notes. ** His character assasinations of Wilbur/Schreiber are not open to dispute and therefore, highly suspect. ** He lends no creedence at all to the possibility that Wilbur may have approached him with Sybil as a schizophrenic bc at that time, multiplicity was not a recognized condition by the psychiatric community (not in the DSM) and perhaps, she may have been attempting to keep his observations as unbiased (uninfluenced) and that she may have been attempting to protect herself professionally. ** He does not fairly represent his own methods of age-regression as also being highly scrutinized by the psychiatric community as fallible, yet he willingly exclaims that age-regression done and personality presentation witnessed by Wilbur as being suspect to being iatrogenic. ** His own claim to Wilbur’s iatrogenic induction in respects to Sybil making statements about Wilbur wanting her to be "Helen" are again, not open to dispute by Sybil. A fact, that I am sure he is aware of – that Sybil is not going to come out into the open and expose her true identity. Therefore, he is pretty open – has the entire discussion to his liking , interpretation, inference, slander, etc. ** He claims Sybil’s recanting as indicative of T coersion versus giving any balanced perspective that ab*se victims often recant and attempt to hold the "good parent" in their eyes. He gives no creedence to what this behavior speaks to as a coping mechanism of survivors. ** How he can candidly dismiss the possibility that Sybil’s mother could be "intentionally cruel" is beyond me entirely and flies in the face of many documented cases of such occurences. ** His contention that Wilbur’s work with Sybil was based on Freud’s "causation" theory (cause-effect-conflict) is not as "groundless" as he makes it sound. Cause-effect relationships have been noted for centuries. ** He claims no "credit" given in the book bc he would not go along with the dx of DID. On one hand, he is correct in not "joining" since the ~context~ of his work was not therapeutic. On the other hand, he didn’t want to be associated with the book, states it as such and then appears to want to explain and blame it away on Wilbur/Schreiber. He also lends no possible motive on his part, to not wanting to be associated with a condition not yet recognized in the DSM and his own need to protect his professional standing. ** All of his speculations about motivation underlying the treatment as being connected to the finishing of the book and it’s "sellability" is exactly that, speculation and therefore, groundless. His statement about Wilbur making a statement to this as being the motive is wide open bc again, there is no Wilbur to dispute him. ** His statements about "fusions" taking place once the monies have run out and that treatment is only available to promote this "hysteria" when monies are available is inference and speculation given without the benefit of empirical data to support it. ** Why he considers the "quasi-familial" connection between Wilbur/Schreiber/Sybil as an "artificial bond" is beyond me. He doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes the connection as "artificial". He does give the connection some creedence in stating that it prolly benefitted Sybil – giving context to her histrionic constellation and need for security. ** He states he felt "pressed to put it in print now" and I have to wonder what his motivations are? Chronologically, the book was released in 1972 (he could have spoken up then and didn’t – waited 25 years. The DSM included it in 1980 and revised the condition in 1994. Wilbur d*es in 1992 and Schreiber is d*ad – all attempts to reveal the identity of Sybil have failed and he is bound by confidentiality not to reveal – so the playing field is wide open for him to gain notoriety for being the only last known professional. ** His last, closing statement about ppl who profess to be multiples is so completely gross, misleading, discriminatory and close-minded that I am held in absolute awe that he could say it so openly and not hold a moment’s hesitation in doing so. ** And lastly, he is the father of David Spiegel, one who has written extensively on multiplicity and I have to wonder, really wonder, why it is that when talk shows or news shows speak on the subject of multiplicity and it’s validity, they always seem to present this f*ther-son combo. As for the author of the article, it is clear that he holds a bias and was interviewing to fulfill a particular agenda. His statements about Wilbur being a "c*lt figure within the MPD movement" is outrageous. He fails to lend credit to the condition being recognized, though unnamed, back in the late 1800’s. He fails to give creedence to Freud’s/Breur’s own observation who then termed it "hysteria" (a term which has remained in the eyes of many since). He fails to report that Freud’s "s*d*ction theory" was later recanted by Freud, who came forward that he was influenced by the times and devised the s*d*ction theory versus state that what was directly linked to his patients issues was s*x*al ab*se and child ab*se that had happened in lives of his patients. He poorly presents the inclusion of MPD in the DSM as being the work of Putnam, Braun and Kluft by not disclosing the process in which the APA concludes the validity of a condition. Imo, unfair representation. I fail to see how ppl suffering from DID have now become "a major thr*at to mental health" unless he is referring to child ab*se but even then, it makes no sense at all. I agree with about 80% of what Dr. Spiegel says in this interview. What’s the 20% that you do? He brings up some interesting ideas that made me think. Dr. Spiegel, to add to his creditability worked with soldiers in World War II who suffered from shell shock. So, he recognizes PTSD. Big whoopie! Doesn’t take a genius gene to figure that one out imo! I do believe that there are some rare individuals who suffer from multiple personality, but I think that there are a greater number who suffer from dissociative disorder. Ahem…DID is a dissociative condition. Ever heard of the dissociative spectrum? Both disorders in my mind resemble each other to a high degree, they share a lot of the same symptoms. On a spectrum, of course…meaning intensity, frequency, duration and experience. Please read the article and let me know what you think about it. Well, these are my thoughts. I have more but this could turn into a novel if I gave historical, social, personal and political context. : o) If you have any articles that you have found to be interesting, please post them. Well gee, I have several but since I just kept the article without retaining the URL, I may not. I am sorry for the poor spelling, writing, and as always the poor grammer, but I have blacked out for at least a week. I came too and didn’t even recognize my own tooth brush. : o) Not a problem for me. Reading and typing with blurry vision was though! : o) Sierra of TN — "Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned." (Rules for Being Human)
– For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
Response:
you go girl! :) choddie
*smiling* Thanks, choddie. The only other thing I would add is that Herbie has a lot of gawl to slander Wilbur and her work with Sybil when all he ever did with Sybil was hypnosis research and three sessions doing containment, yet he seems to want full claim to know what’s up. If any other professional worked with someone doing primarily hypnosis research with three sessions on the side and then, came out espousing that they knew all about what was going on with a person…they wouldn’t be taken seriously at all and it would be professional s**c*de. Provocative that other ppl are taking him seriously concerning Sybil and the context of his contact with her. Imo, he’s s*cking up the notoriety aspect and is able to do so bc of Wilbur’s efforts! Leech! Sierra of TN — "Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned." (Rules for Being Human)
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.