Talk:Depersonalization-derealization disorder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ignore Clean-up Sign's Please

Please ignore clean-up signs, i am gathering all the corrosponding data as needed and will citication them soon.

Thanks

With deepest regards

--82.26.65.83 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey this article really needs a few edits. I'l get on it when I have time, anyone else up for it? Mainly just fluency, and minor grammatical errors. Qforvendetta (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

older comments

Plenty to say that the 'sufferer' is not going insane. How are we defining insane? I think a more specific term would be apt.

I agree that another word could be used instead of 'insane', however it seems you're also suggesting that some evidence should be given that the sufferer is insane? --Ronius 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As a DP sufferer, I don't balk at the use of the term "insane", since it's more colloquial than academic a term, and it gets the point across adequately. Perhaps linking the term "insane" to Mental Illness would suffice?

Insane, crazy, nuts... the point is that's the way the person (the ordinary, non-technical person) feels when DPD appears. Since the person isn't really insane, we don't need a technical definition. Anyone who has suffered DPD can probably attest to that feeling, at least until the condition is diagnosed and explained to him/her. --ZZYZX 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entry for *Transcendental Meditation from the list of differential diagnoses, because it's not a disorder, as categorized by the heading which reads "Some disorders have similar symptoms. The clinicians must differentiate between and rule out the following disorders to establish a precise diagnosis." If someone else wants to find a more appropriate place for it, then that would probably be good. (No signature)

I deleted a few of the headings near the bottom as they had no information in them and looked untidy. If they're needed by someone, I suppose you could pick the page up from the history. Ronius 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the abbreviation from DD to DPD. Daphne Simeon's book uses the DPD abbreviation. Secondly, a review of the literature shows that DPD is widely used in the medical and psychological community. Absentis 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First Use

The article as it stands gives Amiel credit for using the word "depersonalized" first in 1880, but the Oxford English Dictionary has an example from 1866 by James Russell Lowell (in the Biglow Papers). I'm minded to delete the section altogether, unless there's some compelling reason for keeping as it is. Thoughts? Alexrexpvt 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Daphne Simeon, in her book Feeling Unreal, quotes Amiel then states that he "gave birth to the term". I'm just going by what she's saying. Could you provide the example you're talking about? (I can't seem to find it.)

I think that a history section should exist. If you look at some of the psychology featured articles, they have history sections. DPD has a long history both in mental illness and literature. Its easily linked with existentialism, for example.

At the very least, don't get rid of the section; replace it with something. Absentis 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to include it with my post. "1866 LOWELL Biglow P. Introd., He would have enabled me..to depersonalize myself into a vicarious egotism." The phrasing of the present section is a little ambiguous at any rate: it says that the first use of "depersonalization", i. e., the noun is in 1880; but then gives the first example of the participle. For the noun itself, specifically as a term of psychology, the first example the OED has is "1904 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. XV. 589 The peculiar feelings of strangeness and depersonalization.", an anglicization of the French dépersonnalisation (1898). The OED page for "depersonalize" is here, although it's subscription only. Alexrexpvt 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Risk to Society

Opening paragraph 19 June 2007:

"While a nuisance, and very distressing to the patient, people with depersonalization disorder represent no risk to society, since their grasp on reality remains intact."

A person with DPD is just as likely to commit any act (criminal or otherwise) as is a "healthy" person. I have never been able to find evidence that shows people with DPD are dangerous.

Mitigating factors seem to include alcohol, depression, and fatigue. Each of these things, seperately or combined, have been known to induce transient depersonalization, which is NOT Depersonalization Disorder. A diagnosis of DPD can only be made if the experience of unreality is not caused by any substance (including alcohol), another mental disorder (like depression), or another physiological state (like fatigue).

I added a link for the two pages in Simeon's book that speaks to reality testing. (The reference is a little off, since in APA the page numbers would be put in an in-text citation.) If you can find something more academic than a newspaper article that suggests people with DPD, in general, are dangerous, I'd be willing to re-consider what is presently in the article. For the moment, I think it should stand as it is. Absentis 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the problem is that, while you are suffering from DPD, you are not sure if you are actually in charge of your own actions - you aren't quite sure from moment to moment if it is actually you, or your body from which you are emotionally distanced, that is doing the acting. You don't know if your free will is intact. That is also why people who experience this over a long period of time CAN be a threat to society - you become not sure if you have a grip on reality or not, because it may dawn on you (I would say definitively that it does but I can't speak for others) that something isn't quite right about "who" or "what" is running your body. And the fear sets in that you could possibly do something that is not "you," but that you will not be able to control it, because you are just watching from within. Perhaps the bigger issue may be, that there different people have different experiences of DPD, and therefore, you can't make blanket statements about all sufferers of the disorder, as to whether or not they are attached to reality all the time. There is a difference between recognizing the "real world," and knowing that you are participating in it, and with DPD, you don't always know that you are actually participating in it. That's kind of why it's a disorder. Kelelain 00:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know anything about this disorder Absentis .I suffer from this disorder for more then 7 years now and because of it I found it difficult to keep a job or to interact with people things that made me very frustrated and in the end made me do a lot of anti-social acts. Some of them I did just to have money so I won't rely on my family everytime I needed something. I should copy the part of the sentence where you say ,,people with depersonalization disorder represent no risk to society,, and hand it to the police in case I get caught so they can let me go. I don't know why people like you feel the need to express their opinion when they don't have a clue about what they are talking. It would be better if people that know a little about this things or they are suffering from this disorder would write on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdanTheValiant (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree no risk to society, more likely to withdraw from society than interact in a dangerous way. However, they are at a risk to themselves, due to reduced reaction time, confusion, etc. (in terms of things like car accidents, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.30.167 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that what the statement means is there is no risk to society directly resulting from the disorder; as opposed to a person with paranoid personality disorder, who in the most extreme cases are motivated by their condition to actively strike out against their percived persecutors. While DPD can cause a person to act antisocially on occasion, this is different from being an active threat to society.--Scorpion451 rant 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References

This type of section is clearly encyclopedic. Just take a look at schizophrenia and down syndrome, both featured articles on a mental disorder, and you will see a section on 'cultural references' and 'portrayal in fiction'. Numb is verified by the film's official production website , and Tarnation is backed up by this movie review. Absentis 15:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. As an academic, I feel that the cultural references in any and all of the psych and soc articles are inappropriate. But, if you're feeling is that a movie review is a legitimate reference source, well, then, who am I to argue with that.

And sign your posts...it shows that you are writing with haste and emotion, not forethought. --DashaKat 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, only like a year late - just saw Numb - as a psychiatrist I have a lot of issues as it was inaccurate in places, and doubt it should be used as a reference. I'd be surprised if there were any scholarly sources that highlighted it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

References

ego death

This concept looks a lot like a stage setting for later ego death related experiences brought upon by certain kind of meditation or psychedelics. Buddhism and Zen (enlightenment) also strive to reach the effect of "automation" and the loss of the sense of self. This article does not mention this, and is heavily biased towards the negative side of this effect. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment is over a year old, so it is probably a dead issue, but it seems that it is worth repeating that the DSM IV specifically excludes voluntary meditative states from diagnoses of DPD:

Voluntarily induced experiences of depersonalization or derealization form part of meditative and trance practices that are prevalent in many religions and cultures and should not be confused with Depersonalization Disorder. (Cited at http://trancenet.net/research/dsm.shtml,"TranceNet: TM & Dissociation" (retrieved Fri Feb 26 2010 15:48:30 GMT-0600))

This leads me to wonder if it would be worthwhile to include the differential diagnoses in the diagnosis section. Mrrhum (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

American Psycho section moved

I made this edit because the description refers to the symptom of depersonalization (which can be part of psychopathy) as opposed to depersonalization as a disorder. It is important this distinction be made as to not confuse a symptom with a disorder. (Not to mention that people with DPD aren't serial killers like Patrick Bateman, but that's tangential.) 75.119.234.245 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Symptom list

The symptom list in the symptom section seems redundant to me. The prose section describes the symptoms, then the list gives, well, a list of those symptoms. I can't find a similar list in any comparable mental health article, so I've taken the list out of the article and placed it here on the talk page. It appears someone/several people have invested quite a bit of effort into making this list, but I just don't see how it can be integrated into the article. Thoughts/suggestions of what to do with this list are welcome. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of symptoms

The following list of depersonalization disorder symptoms and descriptions come from Simeon 2003; Simeon 2004 & Simeon 2006. Individuals who suffer from depersonalization disorder may not have all these symptoms, and may have symptoms not listed below.

• Flavor of meals no longer gives a feeling of pleasure or distaste

• Smell of things no longer gives feeling of pleasure or dislike

• Being able to stare into space much more easily

• No emotions felt when weeping or laughing

• Unable to feel affection towards family and friends

• Feeling detached from bodily pain

• Feeling of being a detached observer of oneself

• Feeling of not having any thoughts at all

• Feeling of being outside the body

• Feeling mechanical and ‘robotic’ when moving

• Own voice sounds remote and unreal

• Unable to feel properly things touched with hands

• Urge to touch oneself to be reassured of bodily existence

• Body feels very light, as if it were floating on air

• See oneself outside, as if looking in a mirror

• Surroundings feel detached or unreal

• Things look flat, as if looking at a picture

• When in a new situation, feeling as if it had happened before

• Recently done things feel as if they took place a long time ago

• Unable to picture things in mind

• Personal memories feel as if one had not been involved in them

• Feeling unreal or cutoff from the world

• Body feels as if it didn't belong to oneself

• Not feeling frightened in normally frightening situations

• Favorite activities no longer enjoyable

• Feeling as though objects look smaller or further away

• Previously familiar places look unfamiliar

• Feeling as though the world is on the other side of a two-way mirror

• A feeling of alienation during social interaction

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Depersonalization-derealization disorder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm starting to review this article. Here are a few initial points:

• In Symptoms, the last two paragraphs ("An analogy…" and "Common words…") are unsourced and have the feel of original research. These need to be either referenced or deleted.
  • I agree. Avoiding jargon and explaining by analogy are sometimes useful, but those two paragraphs read too much like pop sci. Wikipedia usually doesn't have vignettes for symptoms of mental illnesses. I think it's okay to add some, which the last paragraph is trying to do, but the source needs to clearly mentioned. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• In Causes, the role of childhood trauma seems to be pushed very strongly by Simeon, but not so strongly supported by others, such as the Baker paper. Thus it is not clear that this accurately captures the thrust of the literature.
  • Well, in PMID 11431223 Simeon compared DPD diagnosed patients with a control group not diagnosed with any axis I or II disorder. This should be mentioned in the wiki article because it does matter. Her actual conclusion was "Childhood interpersonal trauma and, in particular, emotional abuse may play a role in the pathogenesis of depersonalization disorder." Wiki says "These are significant predictors of depersonalization disorder and depersonalization symptoms". But you cannot quite predict DPD from childhood emotional abuse, because something else, say PTSD or MDD, could be far more prevalent amongst those abused, except those groups were automatically excluded from this study. Whenever you see the word may in the conclusion of science paper, you should read the paper carefully! See my user page for another example... Xasodfuih (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Instead of repeating the full ref for Simeon & Abugel each time a different page is cited, I suggest using "Simeon and Abugel, p XX" for all but the first.
• In Society and Culture, it would seem reasonable to mention that the film Numb is itself about somebody with this condition. Also the first two sentences there are unsourced except by Wikilinks.
• In Treatment, pretty much everything mentioned is at best weakly sourced. Looking around, I did find one very recent review that seems good, by Sierra, PMID 18088198. Would it be possible to make use of that? I realize that access might be difficult.
  • Alas, I don't have free access to that journal, but the abstract alone has some useful bits that the GAN nominator can use. I've added more conservative prevalence numbers to the epidemiology section. If the GAN nominator has access to a university library, he should request a copy of that article. In the US it's available only at a few libraries, but that enough for ILL to do its work. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• In Epidemiology, ought to mention the high incidence of co-morbidity with other psychiatric disorders, especially depression.
  • I agree, and I have the nagging feeling that Daphne Simeon's papers/books are slightly overused in this article. She's an opinion leader in this area, but researchers tend to overstate the importance/prevalence of stuff they specialize in. In particular the wiki article has few details on comorbitidy. For instance the Baker et al. paper has this in its conclusions: "Depersonalisation disorder is a recognisable clinical entity but appears to have significant comorbidity with anxiety and depression. Research into its aetiology and treatment is warranted." Xasodfuih (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think you ought to explain the term "reality testing". The Wikipedia article accessed by reality testing is not helpful, and there will be a lot of readers who won't be familiar with the term.
  • The problem in this case is that Reality testing should be a dab page between the lucid dream stuff (I didn't read it carefully) and mental status examination, where is should be mentioned in the Thought process section methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More to come… Looie496 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional points:

• Regarding article structure: I think diagnosis should come right after symptoms because little else besides self-reports are useful.
• Causes and Pathophysiology sections should be merged.
• DSM-IV-TR Criteria point 4 summary should use more clear wording than "not related"
• Use of The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. How exactly is this related to DPD?
  • I have removed the picture since nobody provided an explanation. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Xasodfuih (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another minor thing to share, the External link section has a reference, which is not really needed and also as per WP:MOS. Thank you. Bluptr (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This page needs some images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This review has not been updated in quite some time. If issues have not been resolved, it should probably be failed. Gary King (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note from Casliber

There is a problem with comprehensiveness - this is not a diagnosis commonly seen or used in psychiatry in my experience, and there needs to be some discussion of it, especially questioning its validity per se. I have not looked myself, and if I have time I might try and dig some up.

Although I know the film Numb purports to show someone with this disorder, I'd really like to see a reference from an independent psychiatric author, book or journal to back this up. I had problems with the explanation of the film with this disorder. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I started a section on its relationship to other psychiatric disorders, although I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. Could you give me a few pointers on the content that should be added? (For example, there is information on the similarity between DPD and temporal lobe epilepsy, which has directed some treatment research, esp Lamictal. Also, there are a couple studies that have found evidence that DPD is separate from other disorders, ex by looking at cortisol levels. Is this the kind of information that should be covered?) Thanks! Letsgoridebikes (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This article's been on hold forever! what's the status? Wizardman 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since neither User:Looie496, nor User:Xasodfuih, nor User:Casliber, nor User:Jmh649 have followed up, the editor of this article has been left hanging. I am failing this article for lack of reviewer follow-through. If you disagree with this decision, you may take this article for Good article reassessment. You may also renominate this article at Good article nomination, Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought this had been failed a long time ago -- it was removed from GAN by somebody, at any rate. Note that the creator of the article never responded to any of the specific points in the review -- the only entry on this page by Letsgoridebikes came on Feb 21, well over a month after the review was started. I'd be happy to write this off as miscommunication and let a new GA review start, with a different reviewer. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder#Diagnosis

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder#Diagnosis

Herewith my suggested changes for source text quoted in this section – realizing that there is perhaps no way to make these changes, as it is a quoted text:

Tautology correction needed here:

Drop 'are as follows' because that is expressed by the full colon itself.

DSM-IV-TR criteria The diagnostic criteria defined in section 300.6 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:[1]

Rewrite required here for parallel construction:

Longstanding or recurring feelings of being detached from one's mental processes or body, as if one is observing them from the outside or in a dream;

Unimpaired Reality testing;

Significant difficulties or distress at work, or social and other important areas of life functioning.

Punctuation changes [semi-colons separating items in a series] required here:

The DSM-IV-TR specifically recognizes three possible additional features of depersonalization disorder:

Derealization, experiencing the external world as strange or unreal;

Macropsia or micropsia, an alteration in the perception of object size or shape;

A sense that other people seem unfamiliar or mechanical.

---

To make it understandable, I unscrambled this incomprehensible source text and believe it should stand alone rather than be included in its original place:

Depersonalization is not associated with substance use or a medical illness and can occur in individuals who experience no other mental disorder.

Let's do what is possible ! Kgrad (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines and depersonalisation

I removed the following text for a few reasons. First, because the citations do not reflect the content of the sentence, and secondly, because all three citations refer to depersonalization (symptom), not depersonalization disorder (which is, redundantly, a disorder). These are two different things. If anything, this material ought to be put in the article on depersonalization, definitely not in the section on treatment, as this would be a potential "cause". Lastly, case studies for specific drugs are poor references for making sweeping statements on an entire pharmacological family. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"However, benzodiazepine dependence which occurs with long term use of benzodiazepines can induce depersonalisation disorder and perceptual disturbances in some people even in those who are taking a stable daily dosage and it can also become a protracted feature of the benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome."

The first reference talks about symptoms which emerge during chronic use. The ref is not talking about the occasional short episode once every few months of depersonalisation or whatever. It is talking about chronic depersonalisation symptoms, which is the definition of depersonalisation disorder according to the lead of this article. The other 2 references were on depersonalisation appearing as a withdrawal symptom. You are correct, I placed the data in the wrong section. You say that case studies are weak evidence, so why have you left the anecdotal evidence that benzodiazepines are effective for depersonalisation when there have been no clinical trials conducted? My citation actually had a stronger evidence base as it was describing actual observations by clinicians where the one which remains advocating benzodiazepines was based on "structured interviews". I do not however, deny that benzos might help some people, but then again it might help only in suppressing sedative hypnotic withdrawal related depersonalisation for all we know but who knows. That was why I felt both view points from the medical literature should be presented so the reader can decide for themselves as well as for neutrality purposes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is written in accordance with the DSM's nosology. A medical condition is part of the exclusion criteria for diagnosing depersonalization disorder. If chronic depersonalization exists due to benzodiazepine withdrawal, then the depersonalization is a symptom of a medical condition, and not a stand-alone psychiatric disorder. So by definition, the first references does not talk about depersonalization disorder. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess you or the DSM would take the same stance if it was induced chronically by the present drug use/dependence?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not intending to add back the info on benzos causing depersonalisation disorder.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC

If I understand your question correctly, if chronic depersonalization was caused by drug abuse, then yes, it would be classified as a substance abuse disorder. This is different than DPD being triggered by drug use, which occurs in a substantial amount of cases. Eg The literature reports some people have been diagnosed with DPD following the use of cannabis or a hallucinogen (and some other drugs) but never following the use of benzos. I'm not saying that in reality benzos do or don't trigger DPD, its just that no epidemiological studies on DPD have identified the use of a benzodiazepine as a trigger for depersonalization disorder. I hope that clarifies things. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The part in the paper wasn't talking about drug abuse, as it stated the patients were taking a stable daily dosage. Drug abusers as you know don't take a stable daily dose but use drugs chaotically. It was talking about therapeutic drug dependence and the adverse effects which occur in some people from long term use. Benzodiazepines can cause long lasting depersonalisation as a result of withdrawal, but the problem is that the majority of the withdrawal studies cut off at 4 - 8 weeks and don't follow patients up and wrongly conclude that the remaining symptoms are people's baseline. Of the studies of protracted withdrawal where they have followed people up for I think in most cases a year and one or 2 studies a bit longer they do mention protracted symptoms, perceptual disturbances, unreality and I am quite sure that there are papers mentioning protracted symptoms including depersonalisation persisting for years if I remember correctly. All the studies which follow people up over longer periods of time show continuing improvement in a variety of symptomatology. I do know of people who got depersonalisation and had it for several years. In most cases it is from abrupt withdrawal from high doses. I personally think that the abrupt withdrawal can cause extreme neuroexcitation (extreme overfiring of neurones) of the neurons (similar to how neuronal excitement induced by methamphetamine abuse damages neurones) leading to neuronal damage which takes years to reverse. Although this is a personal theory and educated guess from my knowledge of the literature. I have maybe went a bit off topic here but oh well. I know of a lady who has depersonalisation 8 years later after detoxing off of benzos but she was abusing benzos at very high doses. I know of others as well who took years to recover from high therapeutic doses but like I say almost always they did rapid detoxes, hence my theory.:=) Infact I know from my line of work, that there were people who had depersonalisation from benzodiazepines who submitted to some some medial study that was advertised on I think dpselfhelp or some site like that, not sure if that is the name. It got published, never read it so not sure how they presented the data or not, so I know that a study has been published which had several submissions from benzodiazepine induced chronic depersonalisation disorder.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just deleted this sentence. " These drugs are not known to affect the symptoms of dissociation at all, however they do target the often co-morbid anxiety and stress experienced by those with DPD." This is total nonsense and if it is not a fraudulent representation of the reference the author of the reference doesn't know what he is talking about and I think the author simeon et and his paper should be discredited. Whoever added it seems to have worded it in a promotional tone like saying benzos aren't known for affecting dissoication "at all". Benzos can cause adverse effects which alter disociation levels. Promotional tone is one thing but if it is totally inaccurate then it makes it worse.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Simeon just happens to be the foremost North American expert on depersonalization disorder, but whatever... I'll give you a chance to take the time and read the article and revert your edits before I do so myself. Letsgoridebikes (talk)

I was more disputing his knowledge on benzodiazepines rather than depersonalisation disorder. I do not have the full text on the article. I take back what I say about the entire article being discredited but disagree that benzodiazepines aren't capable in some people of inducing disociation like symptoms. I accept that some people are helped by benzodiazepines and that he is an expert in depersonalisation but reject that he is an expert or knowledgable in benzodiazepines. In young people an occasional side effect is disociation, hallucinations, perceptual disturbances etc. In older patients, benzodiazepines are one of the common causes of delerium and confusion. Ask any doctor, seriously, or just look up a patient info sheet for one of the benzos. But listen I came here to try and improve the article. If you really really want to say that benzos are unknown for causing disociation and no one ever has paradoxical reactions such as disociation or related symptoms to benzos, fair enough just revert my edits then. I am not going to revert my edit back to say benzos are unknown for causing or affecting disociation because it is misinfo. The article ain't worth getting into an edit war. I will leave the decision to revert up to you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the effects of benzodiazepines. I like to think that I didn't waste my time attending psychopharamacology classes in university. :) See my statement lower down for more information. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. I have met 3 psychopharmacologists though that became dependent on benzos and learnt more from their dependence. :=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See this link[1], an abstract on benzos causing disociation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, there lies a differences between chronic depersonalization as a symptom, and depersonalization as a disorder. Stop confusing the two. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not confused. I did not give that link to show benzos cause depersonalisation disorder. I gave that link to to dispute the statement that simeon apparently said that benzos are not known for inducing disociation "at all". By the way one of the main reasons why benzos are so associated with causing disociative symptoms is to do with their effect on memory and potential to induce amnesia and other cognitive effects which leads to disociation. Why do you think they are the most common date rape drugs? People disociate, forget what is happening and happened, get confused, disorientated, detatched, forgetful and so on. It also can happen to patients prescribed them as well occasionally if they are sensitive to the effects of benzos. I can't believe I am having to debate this. But anyway. I give up LOL.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The retrospective study was to find out what medications helped patients, and in what capacity. The result was that patient's reported less anxiety and less depression, but did not report that benzos lessened their dissociative symptoms. The article never said anything about benzos inducing or not inducing dissociation; the article doesn't touch on this subject specifically, and you'd know that if you had taken the time to read it. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but I think the way the sentence reads now I and other readers would assume that the "slight to definite" improvement is referring to depersonalisation disorder. Would it not be better to reword it to say that some users found benzodiazepines helped alleviate anxiety symptoms associated with or comorbid with depersonalisation disorder?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read the section and I see that you have already done that. Two great minds think alike! ;=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask each of you to bite your tongues whenever you feel an urge to insult the other one? Both of you are working in good faith and have considerable knowledge, so there's nothing to gain by heating up the atmosphere. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I did think about this when I went away from the computer (that I got too carried away over a couple of sentences), but oh well here I am involved in the depersonalisation disorder article. :=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Difference between diagnosis and symptoms

DPD is not diagnosed if the symptoms are due to substance use (point 4). So this issue of benzo's causing similar symptoms should be added to depersonalization. (I first started this subsection as a question, but the coin dropped a minute later.) Xasodfuih (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to add back the info on benzos causing depersonalisation disorder to this article. :=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article request

Could someone do me a favour and get a copy of this article for me? (My university doesn't have a subscription to that journal.) If anyone gets a copy, I'd appreciate it if they sent me an email. Thanks! Letsgoridebikes (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn - not on my journal list either...sorry Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. If you are at uni in the US, you can get practically any article through Interlibrary loan. Some poor undergrad at some other college will photocopy (and email you a scan of) the paper for you after you fill an electronic form. Contact your library. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in the US but I've heard of something similar in my country, so that is what I will do.Letsgoridebikes (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

External link - dpselfhelp.com

External links to discussion sites are normally to be avoided, as per WP:EL, but this one seems to be particularly notable. It is in two books, Simeon's Feeling Unreal and a self-help book (which I would normally dismiss, but it was written by a researcher at the IoP's DRU). It was also used by Simeon to recruit research participants for one of her studies. So... I thought I'd ask for opinions as to whether or not it should be included because it has shown up in the literature, and isn't just some random discussion site. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than have it as a blind link, why not describe why it is notable in the body of the text under research or treatment or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've linked the DMOZ in the EL section, and that has a link to the site. I wouldn't include it in the body text unless it is itself notable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems good to me.Letsgoridebikes (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

External Link to DepersonalizationDisorder.org

The link to DepersonalizationDisorder.org has been added and removed from the article several times. This means that a consensus for its inclusion has not been reached, and according to WP:EL the "burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Put simply, I cannot figure out how this encyclopedic article will benefit from the inclusion of this particular external link.

Allow me to go through and explain why the link shouldn't be in the article. What should be linked is found in WP:ELYES. 1. This is not an official link for DPD (because there is no such thing as an official website for a mental illness). 2. Not applicable. 3. The website does not contain any material that contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. In fact, the website does not appear to contain any information that is already covered in the article.

Should you disagree and believe that this link should be in the article, please state your reasoning in this thread. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "feeling"

There needs to be some clarification or distinction concerning the use of the word "feel" or "feeling" in this article. The word needs to be removed as it is currently used (to describe the symptoms) except when quoting someone who used it or in explaining that the symptoms are not "feelings". Call it semantics, but "feel" to me is sad, happy, suspicious, etc. But you become sad, happy, suspicious, etc generally because some physically observable reason. DPD is physically observable by it's sufferers and has nothing to do with whether or not they believe in their own existence etc. If these types of ideas are present, they are secondary to the DPD. Consider the difference between the way two different animals perceive time. Turtles see things much slower than gazelles. Therefor to a turtle, one might postulate, the world seems to be moving at a much faster pace than to the gazelle. But to both the turtle and the gazelle, everything looks normal, not because they are used to what they see, but because their brains are designed to operate at a certain tempo and thus it is their very awareness and ability to process information that is different. So, "I think the world is not real." is quite different from "The world appears different to me than it used to, though I know it is the same." You wouldn't have to hear my thoughts to understand what DPD is, if you could see through my eyes. I know this may seem like I'm just pushing my take of the disorder, but before editing or removing this comment, please strongly consider that everything I have just said is to justify the clarification of the article so that people understand that this is not a purely psychological disorder (my son is satan/the dog told me to do it/the world doesn't seem real) It's physical (when I touch the cold thing, I sense heat, not cold)

Here is a good example of describing the experience differently and this info should be included and referenced in the article: "People with DPAFU [Depersonalization and feelings of unreality] experience an alteration in their perception or experience of the self." -http://www.overcoming.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8745 not how they feel about themselves or their reality, but how they perceive it, physically. Gcwjr85 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your points would be much stronger if you could justify them on the basis of reputable published sources (which a website is not). Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Depersonalization-derealization disorder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

--86.31.36.161 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Excellent article, full of intresting facts

Last edited at 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)