Citations needed.

I don't see how "outright cranks", "debunked ideas", are a constructive way to engage in such discussions. You asked for professional opinions, I provided professional opinions. You provided nothing.

▲

ants_everywhere 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I have a hard rule that I don't provide citations to people who don't know the field and seem motivated primarily by politics. This cuts down on sealioning.

But if you're interested in the topic, most of what I've said is covered in a university intro to psych course. I think they may also be covered in AP psych courses. I recommend looking up some of the top psych programs and seeing what they use for their intro undergrad course. That will go over the rejection of Freud and psychoanalysis, the difference between things like anxiety and trauma, and most likely the repressed memory fiasco in the 80s and 90s.

Wikipedia has references for dissociative amnesia under the controversy section. Also check out the repressed memory article.

For the basics of science and pseudoscience you'd have to take a course in scientific methods.

▲

rendx 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You add another ad hominem, great. You know nothing about me and my educational background. You are not required to engage in a discussion, but my point stands: You provide no supporting evidence whatsoever for your perspective.

"Prolonged trauma in childhood, however, can produce severe identity disturbances that may interfere with the encoding and later retrieval of personal semantic and autobiographical event information. […] In light of our accumulating empirical and theoretical understanding, genuine recovered memory experiences no longer appear as bizarre or counter-intuitive as they have been painted by those who are skeptical of their occurrence. The field has not been well-served by much of the existing literature, which has uncritically embraced a variety of myths, logical errors, and false assumptions, and adopted a simplistic approach to what are complex and fascinating memory phenomena […]"

Brewin, C.R. (2012). A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Recovered Memory Experiences. In: Belli, R. (eds) True and False Recovered Memories. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol 58. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1195-6_5

The Rise and Fall of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (2020)

https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memor...

"Debates are frequently characterised by people hunkering down with theoretical rigidity and engaging in ad hominin attack, rather than using scientific debate to further knowledge"

▲

ants_everywhere 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes we are all familiar with the repressed memory cranks like Chris Brewin. He's been at it since the 1990s.

You are not my child and it's not my job to educate you. I'm not going to explain physics to everyone who thinks he has a perpetual motion device either.

▲

rendx 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You are totally right. Nobody asked you to respond to my contributions in this thread. You decided to talk down on me and other people with zero arguments other than personal attacks. That's fully on you. "We are all familiar" with that pattern.

	▲	ants_everywhere 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I responded because I care about science education and psychology education and wanted to correct the record. When someone comes in with a bunch of links that can be confusing to people who don't know the field. If you have motivation and strong enough confirmation bias you can find papers that claim to support anything. Even the existence of telepathy https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=extrasensory+perception That's why it's hard to have good judgment about a field unless you've studied it formally.