'Sybil': "I have essentially been lying"

Pretty convenient discovery
$$ Cha Ching

I don't understand. The author of this new book (Nathan) didn't have the letter in question and has no financial relationship with the women who conspired to present the original book, Sybil, as a true-case study. What was "convenient" about any of it?
 
If that horrible movie was anything close to what this woman told, I never believed it in the first place. No suprise to find out it was all lies, but she definitely needed help if she'd lie. Probably just the run of the mill BPD.
 
this is basically what i believe. she isnt here to defend herself, and neither are the other 2. i doubt if it was the 'thrill'. i think its made up for shock value and a buck. sad either way :(

What is "made up"? The revelation that MPD was made up in "Sybil's" case? Reliable shrinks have been saying that MPD is a creation of therapists and not a genuine disorder all along and the author of the new book has made a career out of writing about psychiatric hokum.

Just to be clear, one letter from one supposed MPD case does not prove the phenomenon does not exist. (I think such evidence exists, but it isn't one letter.) What's more, even if it were proven there is no such thing as MPD, that doesn't mean that patients who were told they suffered from the disorder didn't genuinely believe what they were told. We're talking about some pretty sick people here. Many may have honestly believed the phony diagnosis they were given.

The same may be said of psychiatrists who built careers out treating MPD. No doubt many, if not most, believed in what they were doing.
 
The only book I've read of Nathan's was a fine one: "Satan's silence: ritual abuse and the making of a modern American witch hunt."

Here's her albeit brief Wiki page.
 
"Who ever heard of a purple angel?"

You mean I had to listen to my brother say that to the kids when they'd paint something and go "Look, look what I made". He'd laugh manically and say that line.

Man oh man what do I believe? So the flippin thing she hung up on that lamp or whatever I think it was a cold enema was made up?
 
She also got into bed with her on several occassions and gave her electric shock treatment. Its one of those cases where it sounds like the psychiatrist was madder than the patient.

Day-um.

Quite sad.
 
"Who ever heard of a purple angel?"

You mean I had to listen to my brother say that to the kids when they'd paint something and go "Look, look what I made". He'd laugh manically and say that line.

Man oh man what do I believe? So the flippin thing she hung up on that lamp or whatever I think it was a cold enema was made up?

We may never know what was true and what was false about the past incidents.
 
snip-snip

I agree with the sentiment of much you posted, but, here, fail to see the relevance of maligning the letter's truthfulness or applicability simply because it was written in '58, and the book not published till '73 - I could say "recently discovered, perhaps?" which would account for it, but I seem to remember mention of this letter years ago. One can't fault the author for recently publishing it, I don't think. And one does write for money, so I don't understand the "payday" argument. Lying about one's afflictions and then profiting from a book on same is, I think, a very different thing.

Rum case all the way 'round.

How did she lie about her afflictions? She stated she wanted help. She went to a DOCTOR. The doctor wrote the book, the doctor administered the "treatments". How is Shirley Mason responsible for all this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-split-personality-author-exposed-FAKE.html

In the letter uncovered by Nathan, Mason writes: 'I am all of them. I have essentially been lying… as trying to show you I felt I needed help.'

Isn't that why we are told we must go to the doctor....because we need help? Which is exactly what she did, and if Ms. Nathan is to be believed, she was taken advantage of again. How is she to blame for this? She didn't write the book. She was a distraught woman needing help. She is not to blame for what Schreiber did, either in treatment or afterward but the venom seems to be directed at her......people are implying that she lied about her past and her 'afflictions' to get money from a book she didn't even write, but Ms. Nathan is fine for attempting to discredit an entire section of the population that has been heinously abused. I take umbrage to that.
 
I have to ask this.Does anyone believe Truddi Chase?I remember her from Oprah many moons ago.

She was haunting to me as was the movie Sybil.Sybil is the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen.The enema on the kitchen table blows my damn mind.

Yes, I do believe Truddi Chase. Call me stupid. I've read her book cover to cover several times:

Amazon.com: When Rabbit Howls (9780515103298): Truddi Chase: Books

Please note Truddi Chase wrote this book, not her therapist:

Amazon.com: Truddi Chase: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
 
I'm disgusted.

I read the book back in the 70's, saw the movie too. I'll never think of enemas the same again! :eek: There's some kind of sick mind at work to even come up with some of that stuff. imo

:websleuther:

HERE'S TO LOOKING AT ENEMAS...
 
How did she lie about her afflictions? She stated she wanted help. She went to a DOCTOR. The doctor wrote the book, the doctor administered the "treatments". How is Shirley Mason responsible for all this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...se-split-personality-author-exposed-FAKE.html



Isn't that why we are told we must go to the doctor....because we need help? Which is exactly what she did, and if Ms. Nathan is to be believed, she was taken advantage of again. How is she to blame for this? She didn't write the book. She was a distraught woman needing help. She is not to blame for what Schreiber did, either in treatment or afterward but the venom seems to be directed at her......people are implying that she lied about her past and her 'afflictions' to get money from a book she didn't even write, but Ms. Nathan is fine for attempting to discredit an entire section of the population that has been heinously abused. I take umbrage to that.

Neither of us has read the book, but based on summaries and reviews, I think you are unfair to Nathan here. Her book clearly places the majority of the blame on the doctor and the writer, not the original patient. The summaries linked above emphasize the way the doctor manipulated and controlled "Sybil".

Furthermore, Nathan isn't "discrediting" patients who have been diagnosed with MPD. She (along with many authorities) is questioning claims that have been made too freely by psychiatrists and psychologists.
 
OK, maybe I'm not reading these articles right, but IMO...

Debbie Nathan wrote a book to "expose sybil" and disabuse her claims. All I see from these articles are publicity for her new book: Sybil Exposed

It is one person's way of making money off of a controversial subject and from what I can see of reviews, etc., this author is expressing her opinion, not "hard facts".

So whether Sybil was indeed true or not - It isn't really proved here at all... It's only an author, getting exposure for her newly released book.
 
National Public Radio's look at the issue:

Exploring Multiple Personalities In 'Sybil Exposed'
---
NATHAN: It does, yes, because "Sybil" was marketed as nonfiction, which I think was about 99 percent of its appeal. It started a craze in this country, sold millions of copies within a few years, started that huge increase in cases that you mentioned. But I spent a long time in an archive in New York City that includes thousands of pages of Sybil's therapy records and the records of the doctor and the journalist working on the book. And what I found was that the story is sort of a mishmash of fantasy, of lies, of confabulations, of confusion, certainly should be called fiction rather than nonfiction and that in fact it was the - a very suggestible patient and a very demanding doctor who essentially demanded the behavior from the patient.
---

A "listen to the story" feature and a transcript of Ira Flatow's interview with Debbie Nathan at link above.
 
Just because one woman may have lied that does not discredit the diagnosis of others. I know people who genuinely do suffer and do disassociate. The disorder is now called DID - Dissasociative Identity Disorder

I think maybe the mistake is in hanging the theory of what happens on the story of a woman rather than looking at reputable studies.

I did read Sybil, but at the time, I was working in an institution called High Royds in Menston, Ilkley here in the UK. I got to read a lot of patient notes because we were allowed to and I sometimes worked on the women's locked ward. I saw things as an eighteen year old that were bizarre and frightening and just part of mental illness, but also enough not to dismiss any trick of the human mind out of hand. Only look at this if you have a stomach for gothic horror. There is worse on youtube if you google it!

I also moderated a message board some years ago, where some of the people had mpd. That got very, very interesting as the alters of several women took over and could all have been a big hoax, except one woman went through healing and counselling and today is functioning relatively normally.

I do think it makes sense that if you are severely abused you would create another personality to cover for that time and these could be multiplied - but also sense someone could use that phenomenon as a hoax. It also makes sense that one of the personalities could have decided to play havoc with the medical world by saying the woman is lying.....Now there is a thought. The whole of psychiatry at the whim of an alter. It could just happen.
 
Just because one woman may have lied that does not discredit the diagnosis of others. I know people who genuinely do suffer and do disassociate. The disorder is now called DID - Dissasociative Identity Disorder

I think maybe the mistake is in hanging the theory of what happens on the story of a woman rather than looking at reputable studies.

I did read Sybil, but at the time, I was working in an institution called High Royds in Menston, Ilkley here in the UK. I got to read a lot of patient notes because we were allowed to and I sometimes worked on the women's locked ward. I saw things as an eighteen year old that were bizarre and frightening and just part of mental illness, but also enough not to dismiss any trick of the human mind out of hand. Only look at this if you have a stomach for gothic horror. There is worse on youtube if you google it!

I also moderated a message board some years ago, where some of the people had mpd. That got very, very interesting as the alters of several women took over and could all have been a big hoax, except one woman went through healing and counselling and today is functioning relatively normally.

I do think it makes sense that if you are severely abused you would create another personality to cover for that time and these could be multiplied - but also sense someone could use that phenomenon as a hoax. It also makes sense that one of the personalities could have decided to play havoc with the medical world by saying the woman is lying.....Now there is a thought. The whole of psychiatry at the whim of an alter. It could just happen.

Thank you, Jackalyn. I don't believe most people blame those who have been diagnosed with MPD, nor do we think they are merely "faking it". Rather, there seems to be considerable evidence that the psychiatric model of "multiple-personality disorder" may be faulty.

That isn't to say people don't disassociate or that they don't need and deserve treatment.

If it makes sense that the psyche would invent an alter to cope with an unbearable situation, it certainly makes equal sense that the psyche would use other means to achieve the same result.
 
It amazes me how some people will ask questions in a thread that could have been answered if they read the OP article.

I also am amazed by that.

Oh c'mon you've both done that before.

Who asked you anything, why don't you leave them alone.

:sigh: See what I have to put up with from these three everyday?

Three, you can't count. You seem to have forgotten about me.

And me.

Me too.

What about me?

You already made a comment idiot.
 
"multiple-personality disorder" is now called Dissasociative Identity Disorder which makes me think that psychologists may have updated some of their theory. All I know is I have seen this in action and think the explanation of multiple personalities not that far fetched - Sybil actually had nothing on some of the things I have read in patients case notes!
 
"multiple-personality disorder" is now called Dissasociative Identity Disorder which makes me think that psychologists may have updated some of their theory. All I know is I have seen this in action and think the explanation of multiple personalities not that far fetched - Sybil actually had nothing on some of the things I have read in patients case notes!

I want to be clear that I am not doubting Jackalyn's report in any way. And I think she's almost certainly right that the renaming of the disorder reflects new thinking on the subject. (I am by no means claiming to be an expert on any of this.)

But it's interesting to note that she is dependent on the NOTES of other mental health professionals.

Although Nathan's book is critical of Sybil's own therapist, I don't think anyone is saying psychotherapists generally lie or have lied about what they believe to be MPD cases. But their understanding of the condition influences what they see and report, and, hence, affected the notes that Jackalyn was able to read. (And let's face it: an MPD patient must be a welcome interruption if your practice consists largely of middle-class patients complaining about petty neuroses!)

(For the record, my husband had a patient in the 70s who reported multiple alters. He tended to take her at her word then; now he isn't so sure. This isn't to say the patient wasn't genuinely ill; patients have all sorts of reporting strategies that may reveal or obscure the truth of their condition. They, too, are affected by prevailing mental health constructions. And so it goes.)
 
Wow. I'll say this, I have thought that some of the stories relayed by people with MPD diagnoses seem impossible to survive. Like Rabbit. Anyone heard of her story, When Rabbit Howls? It involves abuse so horrific, worse than Sybil's that it seems very unlikely a person could survive it.

I think a person would probably die without intensive medical treatment if they suffered the kind of abuse these people describe. Looking back at some of the claims Sybil made, like lesbian orgies her mom had with teen girls in the woods, it does seem we were had.

Not trying to be Mr Smarty-Pants, but I've long doubted MPD (and look askance too at repressed memory syndrome). Harrowing book even if it is fiction, and yes, Sally Field's great in the film role too!

I tend not to buy repressed memory syndrome either. That's because my research into trauma shows that people cannot forget trauma. Instead, it replays and often so consumes their lives that they develop PTSD.

Of course, there are traumas that small, pre-verbal children cannot verbalize so they cannot really remember the incident. I believe one needs language to be able to have a full memory. Such children may experience the effects of the trauma without knowing why, but the "memory" will not come shooting out at them, IMO, some day in the future, because the language was never there to store the event. Thus, people do not remember being circumcised as infants, or given shots when too small to comprehend what is happening.

Then there are incidents of abuse that do not involve pain, like fondling. There may not be trauma associated with such an event no matter how wrong and disgusting it may be, so that may not stick in their brains if very small, yet verbal, when it happened.

But ultimately, I agree that traumatic memories are unlikely to be repressed.

As for MPD, my dad never believed in it for a second. He thought it was malingering, acting, or another type of mental illness. But, I used to argue with him because when I was a teen, I was hospitalized for several months and a gal there had been diagnosed with MPD. She'd been there for over a year with no hope of getting out anytime soon because she was not functional. I got to know her very well. When herself, she seemed very normal. Kind of butch, tough, but also very soft spoken, sincere and rational. Never seemed histrionic or strange at all. Just very straight forward and matter of fact.

Then there were her "personalities". Wow, it was so easy to tell. She walked different, talked different and her face looked different. All the personalities I met were males, mostly kids and teens. They knew me even if I thought I hadn't met them. Some were very violent. It was bizarre and at times very scary.

I asked her about her diagnosis. She described extreme abuse - she had been starved and then put in a high chair with food just out of reach. Or made to eat her own vomit or feces. Or hung upside in the doorway and the door slammed on her - all of this occurring when she was very small - 2 to 3 years old. She said that she never remembered being a different personality. But she knew when it was coming because she felt a kind of buzzing or strange feeling in her hands and her head. Next thing she knew, she would wake up strapped to a table and unable to speak because her voice was so strained from screaming and without a memory of what had transpired.

She told me that she was tested when changing personalities, and that her heart rate and brain waves changed.

She did have scars on her body, including horrible scars on each outer arm, near her shoulders, that looked like someone took forks and just dug in. I did not ask how she got them.

I believed her. I experienced her personalities. Now I'm starting to believe that such a diagnosis is not real. Perhaps the person has other issues that are fostered by ambitious psychologists or psychiatrists, like those who encouraged repressed memories about satanic cults in the 80's and 90's. Hmmm.
 
Just because one woman may have lied that does not discredit the diagnosis of others. I know people who genuinely do suffer and do disassociate. The disorder is now called DID - Dissasociative Identity Disorder

I think maybe the mistake is in hanging the theory of what happens on the story of a woman rather than looking at reputable studies.

I did read Sybil, but at the time, I was working in an institution called High Royds in Menston, Ilkley here in the UK. I got to read a lot of patient notes because we were allowed to and I sometimes worked on the women's locked ward. I saw things as an eighteen year old that were bizarre and frightening and just part of mental illness, but also enough not to dismiss any trick of the human mind out of hand. Only look at this if you have a stomach for gothic horror. There is worse on youtube if you google it!

I also moderated a message board some years ago, where some of the people had mpd. That got very, very interesting as the alters of several women took over and could all have been a big hoax, except one woman went through healing and counselling and today is functioning relatively normally.

I do think it makes sense that if you are severely abused you would create another personality to cover for that time and these could be multiplied - but also sense someone could use that phenomenon as a hoax. It also makes sense that one of the personalities could have decided to play havoc with the medical world by saying the woman is lying.....Now there is a thought. The whole of psychiatry at the whim of an alter. It could just happen.

I think disassociation is valid. It's how some people survive sexual abuse, for example. They just go somewhere else. I'm not up to date on the change in the diagnosis but I am starting to doubt the whole changing to a completely different personality in order to cope with abuse thing. It does make some sense - one develops a different personality to deal with abuse as a means of actually staying sane. The abused personality may be crazy but the protected person remains normal. It makes sense that horrific abuse could fragment a person that way.

But in recent months, thinking about this and now reading this account of how the doctor planted this in Sybil's mind to make money, I don't know. I'm starting to believe my dad was right. Some of the abuse many of these people claim they endured seems beyond a person's ability to survive. And then there are many people who endure horrific abuse, like Dave Pelzer, who do not fragment. I guess I am open either way but now a bit skeptical.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
50
Guests online
4,141
Total visitors
4,191

Forum statistics

Threads
592,549
Messages
17,970,873
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top