Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about John Bowlby. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
John Bowlby
Bowlby's Study of Maternal deprivation
Aims: To investigate the effects of maternal deprivation on people. To see whether deliquents had suffered deprivation.
Procedures: Bowlby took two groups of 44 males. One group consisted solely of thieves, the other contained males that had committed other crimes (non-thieves). He asked them to state whether they had suffered maternal deprivation and for how long.
Findings: Bowlby found that 17 of the thieves had suffered a separation for 6 months or more before the age of 5 years. Only 2 of the non-thieves had suffered this. 14 of the thieves had affectionless psychopathy. 12 of these had been deprived.
Conclusion: Affectionless psychopaths show little concern ofr others and are unable to form relationships. Bowlby believed that this resulted from deprivation. the study appears to support the claim that maternal deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy.
Evaluation: The sample was NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the general population. The data collected was RETROSPECTIVE. This meant that bowlby was asking the participants to look back and recall separations. These memories may not be accurate. Boiwlby designed and conducted the experiment himself. This may have lead to BIAS ANALYSIS of the results. There was only a correlation between the two findings, and CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. It is also not possible to find the direction of causation. This study appears to support Bowlby's claim, but it may also be said that it only shows that children who have been deprivaed are MORE LIKELY TO BECOME THIEVES than any other criminal.
miz opel
Remember that every investigation / experiment is theory-driven. Denying that is possibly much more harmful, than not sticking exactly to what is presently considered good experimental design. In my opinion J. Bowlby has done great work. Even if it is as you say, that the investigation resulted in finding that deprived children are more likely to become thieves, this is what I consider a valuable outcome. What are you expecting? - A single cause determining a persons character and behaviour, regardless of all other influences?
Even Physics is dependent on probabilities not certainties, leave alone human behaviour. 84.166.80.157 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Bibliography
Someone seems to have the idea that if a book mentions Bowlby (correctly or incorrectly), then it qualifies to be in a Wikipedia bibliography. I have deleted (for the second time) a vanity book which has been inserted in the bibliography, but is not a good reference on John Bowlby (or his work). The other references seem appropriate and should remain.
I disagree and so have put the reference back. The text is an edited text which describes a treatment methodology based on Attachment Theory and which relies on the work of Sir Bowlby. Since the text was endorsed by Dr. Dan Siegel of the UCLA Medical School (and Sir Richard Bowlby, Sir John's son) it is not a vanity book and should remain.
Nonsense. That it is a "treatment methodology" based on "Attachment Theory" doesn't mean it has anything to do with John Bowlby personally (which is what this article is supposed to be about). (Indeed, your reference to "Sir Bowlby" displays an ignorance of British forms of address; moreover, it shows an ignorance about John Bowlby's biography -- he was never a knight or a baronet.) Endorsement of a book, especially by someone like Sir Richard who has no credentials whatever in the field, doesn't make the tome any more relevant, and doesn't make the publisher less of a subsidy publisher (i.e., vanity press). Putting this reference here, more so as the first item in the bibliography, is shameless self-promotion and degrades Wikipedia. It should go. I will keep deleting it as long as you keep adding it. 206.81.65.234 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the treatment is based on John Bowlby's theory and materials it is an example of how theory is related to practice; just like a bio of A. Beck's theory should inlcude reference to CBT. Dr. Siegel has ample credentials (Developing Mind being one of his substantial publications). The fact that your comments are the same as those of Mercer in another context suggests you might be one of her advocates...but maybe not. The publisher is not a vanity press, so your comments are clearly meant to defame. The biblio. is in alpha order...and is neither self-promotion nor degrading and you should continue your comments but leave it as is per Wiki procedures and policy. You always have the right to have this dispute mediated if you wish.
There already is a link to "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy", just above the bibliography, that serves the purpose you state. Putting "incidental" references in a bibliography such as this is a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who have a right to expect references (especially hard-to-find ones in libraries) to be worth the effort to look at. Anyone interested solely in Bowlby is going to be frustrated with this reference. (And really, "Woods & Barnes" is not a subsidy publisher?) This reference is advertising. Consistent with Wiki efforts against spam, I'm still deleting it. I suggest you leave it off. You always have the right to have this dispute mediated if you wish; I'll happily respond to a mediator. 206.81.65.234 15:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
A reference that relates to an entry is always appropriate. No Wood N Barnes is not a subsidy publisher...if you did some research you'd easily see that. I am putting the reference back as it belongs there and the procedure on Wiki is to discuss it here. If you wish to mediate this, I'd agree. regards
I've decided to suspend my reversion efforts while we see whether you believe any of what you've just said, to be judged by your reaction to my most recent article edits. As for Wood N Barnes, I'll retract my prior statement for now. I have no evidence they are a subsidy publisher. They are just insignificant, IMHO. 206.81.65.234 08:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bowlby's Theory in Practice
Well, well, Mr/Ms 68.66.160.228, we now see that you are not really a follower of the Wiki philosophy as you were claiming before. I go to all the trouble to rewrite a section to give a better encyclopedic account and you respond not by trying to get into the Wiki spirit of things and "improving" my account, but by just reverting to the old version. No discussion here (as you had suggested was appropriate in our other dispute), just revert.
Fine, this time I'm not going to yield to sophistry. We can trade reverts as long as you want. Or you can put some serious thought into your submissions and see if future exchanges can ultimately come up with an improved Wiki article on John Bowlby. Or you can leave my version alone and we can discuss it here, as you suggested be done when the shoe was on the other foot.
Your move. (Unless <hint> someone else -- on either side of the issue -- wants to jump in and do their own thing and take this onto still another path.) 206.81.65.234 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I see that one paragraph actually had been "improved" by Mr/Ms 68.66.160.228. So in the spirit I mentioned above, I have improved it further. (It is now two paragraphs instead of one.) Gosh, this is fun. 206.81.65.234 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments sound like your must be Mercer's adopted son; based on previous discussions and correspondance from him. I wonder what Mercer thinks of this...it is a shame that she has to get others to do her bidding and cannot speak for herself. I suppose some of the threats of litigation that were made to her dean and others have made her more cautious about saying things herself and maybe lead her to use others to speak for her? Just a thought.
- It's getting a little tiring correcting the misinformation that is being posted on Wikipedia about Jean Mercer, but just for the record, she does not have any adopted children. I don't know what correspondence you are referring to, but if there was in fact any actual correspondence between you and a son of Jean Mercer, it was with her biological son.
- We don't see Mercer responding, why is that?
- Gosh, you can't figure that out from reading what's here? This is a talk page about the John Bowlby article. Attacking Mercer has nothing to do with John Bowlby, and answering idiotic charges about herself is not a good use of her time, especially when she's not the issue, and they come from Williamsville (or sometimes Alexandria, Virginia). Also, why should someone with a CV as long as your arm care, except when she's been slandered? But, then, I'm not Jean Mercer, and, like you, I can only guess at her reasons. Difference between us is that my guesses have a much larger probability of being closer to the mark.
- All that besides, she apparently did respond to some of the slander and ad feminam remarks made by your buddies (see below).
Let's get real
I note that user AWeidman (a/k/a Arthur Becker-Weidman) has taken ownership of the editing of this section after doing much damage under the sock puppet of his IP address (68.66.160.228). He reverted the small but valuable improvements made by 62.142.4.69 to the really horrible prose posted as by 68.66.160.228.
I take strong exception to the statements of fact made by Mr. Becker-Weidman. As a result of his edits and reversions, this section is almost entirely fiction. In particular, his statement that a condemnatory statement by the APSAC task force did not refer to either him or DDP was flat untrue. APSAC's quote was followed by a citation to Becker-Weidman article on DDP. His characterization of critics as only "fringe advocacy groups" outside the mainstream of child psychology is demonstrably false. His claim that DDP meets the standards of the list of mainstream organizations is disputable as fact. His assertion that the proof of this claim lies with the endorsement of prominent academics is specious reasoning (argument from authority). Moreover on that last point, I challenge him to give independently verifiable citation(s) to prove such endorsements even exist.
It is a disservice to Wikipedia users who may happen upon this article to leave up such rubbish. Accordingly, I have reverted this section, with some minor improvements. Before he reverses my changes, I think Mr Becker-Weidman should discuss his prior falsehoods here. A Wikipedia editor has an obligation not to mislead the encyclopedia's readers.
206.81.65.234 17:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your citations and quotations of the APSAC report are biased and clearly the work of a zealot. As a foil for Dr. Gene Lester/Jean Mercer, why don't you just have her respond. I know she is concerned about the legal ramifications, given the letter sent to her dean, but, really, having her adopted son or her foil in Colorado speak for her is transparent.
your characterization of the APSAC report and its references to Dr. Becker-Weidman is untrue and are gross distortions. Merer and her crew are clearly fringe groups outside the mainstream of child psychology. She is not even licensed in NJ. Your assertions are clearly false and slanderous. I see you don't identify yourself; obviously fearful of the slander charges. I hope that you, Dr. Mercer, undestand that you must cease such actions.
- Once again, I have to step in and correct the record. Jean Mercer does not have any adopted children. I'm not sure where this assertion comes from. I've seen it elsewhere on Wikipedia as well (in fact, in the section right above this one). When people make up facts like this, it tends to undermine the rest of what they say as well.
- - - - - - - -
How a quotation can be "biased" unless taken out of context is beyond me. The question isn't one of bias, anyway. The question is whether it is truthful. In Dr. Becker-Weidman's apparent zeal to promote DDP he posted an untruthful account to this page. I endeavored to correct that account.
I don't know what constitutes a "fringe" group, but I do know that the views expressed in my postings to the article should not be considered outside the mainstream of child psychology. I can, with confidence, say that DDP — based as it is on several erroneous our outdated concepts about child development — is outside the mainstream. It is also not "evidence-based", as I pointed out in the posting to the article, and that leads it toward the "fringe".
The ad hominem attacks here on Jean Mercer have nothing to do with John Bowlby. And what does having a license (to do what? and why New Jersey?) have to do with John Bowlby or whether my account is true or false?
Dr. Becker-Weidman, as to your charges of slander against Dr. Mercer, let's correct the record here and now. I am not Dr. Mercer, nor related to her by birth or adoption. As I've said elsewhere, I am a friend of hers, but these postings are not hers. As for my anonymity, that may drop away at some appropriate point. It certainly is not for fear of charges of slander. So far, I've said nothing slanderous here. I'm not sure you can say the same.
The only way my postings are slanderous would be if they were untrue and defamatory of a person. Saying, for example, that APSAC task force criticized age regression and cited DDP as an example of age regression is true (see p. 79 of the report), despite your above assertions to the contrary. If you disagree, make your case here, then we can see how you argue.
206.81.65.234 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see that the reversions have been moving slowly eastward. From Buffalo to Ithaca to NYC. On a road trip?
- - - - - -
I've reverted to the truthful version, again.
An additional point about whether APSAC takes on DDP and "Dr. Art" (as he sometimes calls himself) — the APSAC task force's report makes this statement:
- "Some proponents have claimed that research exists that supports their methods, or that their methods are evidence based, or are even the sole evidence-based approach in existence, yet these proponents provide no citations to credible scientific research sufficient to support these claims (Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b). [p. 85] This Task Force was unable to locate any methodologically adequate clinical trials in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature to support any of these claims for effectiveness, let alone claims that these treatments are the only effective available approaches." [p. 85]
And the citation to Becker-Weidman above refers to the following:
- Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-b). Dyadic developmental psychotherapy: An attachment-based therapy program. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from www.center4familydevelop.com/therapy.htm. [p. 87]
Give it up, Dr. Art. Your (and Dan Hughes's) precious DDP has not been recognized by the profession as an evidence-based treatment. BTW, Charles Zeanah was on the Task Force that came to this conclusion about DDP. It appears to me that it is you, and not Jean Mercer, who appears to be out of step with the big names in the field.
Further note: the incidental "Practice" section has gotten a lot larger than the main part of the article on Bowlby. The tail is wagging the dog! In at least Dr. Art's version of the section, it also doesn't have a lot to do with Bowlby any more. Something should be done about that.
206.81.65.234 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- It appears the APSAC report quote is based on quite old information (2003 or 2004). It did not have access to or awareness of the article published in a professional peer-reviewed journal demonstrating the effectivenss of DDP when compared with a matched control group. I read the article in Child and Adolescent Social Work, which is a very well respected journal in my field, and found it compelling. I think Dr. Becker-Weidman has presented compelling evidence as has Dr. Hughes and other. DDP is recognized at this point by Dr. Daniel Siegel of UCLA medical school and author of the Developing Mind as evidence based and mainstream and effective. BTW Dr. Zeanah now would respond differently now that he has more current data.
- The APSAC report was published only 5 months ago. Are you saying that the task force was sloppy, and APSAC and APA were willing to endorse sloppy work? The president of ATTACh was on the task force and could have alerted the other members of a change in facts before the report's publication. You've glossed over the obvious point. You earlier said that I my characterization of the report was untrue; now it's that the report was based on old information. Pshaw! You're just making it up as you go along.
- As for Charles Zeanah responding differently, I haven't seen any indication that he renounces the task force report or any part of it. You're putting words in his mouth. Let him say something publicly which you can quote. Until then, the task force's report is his current statement on the subject. And you, like the rest of the world, have to live with it.
- Moreover, Dr. Becker-Weidman, you appear to be asserting that DDP is different now than when those web-pages were accessed. So what's different now about the therapy? Do you no longer do age-regression in DDP? Do you now do better cognitive work with older children? Which form of the therapy did you research and report in CASW? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
- One article in Child and Adolescent Social Work (not exactly a psychology journal), which reports only weak Level II evidence is hardly a basis for claiming something is "evidence-based". Such a claim requires at least two reports of independent research with strong Level I evidence. (see Blueprint for Change: Research on Child and Adolescent Mental Health [Report of the National Advisory Mental Health Council’s Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment, May 2001]) Calling DDP "evidence-based" on the basis of the report in CASW is a laugher.
- (BTW, what did you find compelling about the article? Your use of the discredited, unvalidated RADQ?)
Here is another long winded diatribe by Sarner which shows a lack of understanding and a biased view. Sarner is clearly not open to any information other than what Sarner wants to believe. The APSAC report was several years in the making and includes information that is several years old and so out-dated; although the recommendations are clearly releveant. In fact, if I read Dr. Becker-Weidman's and Dr. Hughes' website materials correctly, they both fully comply with the recommendations of that report!! User:MarkWood:MarkWood
- Boy, User "MarkWood MarkWood", did you understand any of what I wrote? What's not to understand about a bad piece of research? I am open to any evidence that is worthy of the name. Becker-Weidman's article doesn't present any, as I documented.
- And, let's see, you are saying that a report only 5 months old was outdated when it was issued. What an insult to the prominent professionals on that task force, like Charles Zeanah!
- You read the Becker-Weidman's and Hughes's website materials correctly, but those materials are not correct with respect to compliance with the APSAC report. IMHO, DDP does not fully comply with the recommendations of that report; they self-report that they use age regression in DDP. Age regression is specifically recommended against by the APSAC report because of a high risk for harm. QED.
- Becker-Weidman and Hughes can maintain that DDP is not coercive, but their claims do not in themselves make DDP non-coercive. The holding used on children in Hughes's book is resisted by children and it is nevertheless forced on them. The faux contracting with the child, and not allowing the child to cancel the contract (i.e. withdraw consent) is also a form of force.
- But, I'm being "long-winded" here, citing all these inconvenient facts. Do you have any facts to back up any of your assertions?
Both Dr. Becker-Weidman and Dr. Hughes are well respected members of the professional community and do not have to defend themselves against the crack-pot antics of ACT or Mercer and her gang of fringe zealots. Recently Dr. Hughes was on a very impressive, substantial, and significant panel in New York City at NYU with Dr. Foshia and both Drs. Steele during this two day conference. Obviously very main stream! It is a shame that this valuable space has to be taken up with the rantings and ravings of those fringe closed minded individuals from ACT and other friends of Mercer. Dr. Mercer would do well to distance herself from them...it would improve her professional stature as she has done some excellent work in the past if I read her resume correctly.
LETS HEAR FROM MERCER
Why do Mercer and ilk resort to this biased untruthful attack campaign?
More the to point, why doesn't Mercer simply answer the questions raised? Why rely on proxy's such as Rosa and Mercer's son?
Specifically: 1. Why the name change from Gene Lester to Jean Mercer? 2. Are you licensed in NJ as a clinical psychologyist? 3. Have you ever practiced...in other words do you know what you are talking about or is this all you say just based on your own biases? 4. Why don't any of the main stream professionals in the field consider you a serious persona? (Meaning people like C. Zeanah, Main, Hesse, etc? Your responses to these questions would be a good start in clearing things up.
- This obsession with Jean Mercer's name change borders on the bizarre. She has already answered the question elsewhere on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_4#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate_9. As she explained there in response to a "requestion for mediation" by Arthur Becker-Weidman:
- "For the record, I am female; my mother thought it was cute to name me after my father; I changed my spelling legally at the same time I was divorced and resumed my maiden name, and I did so in an apparently fruitless effort to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding. Dr. Becker-Weidman was informed of this fact some months ago, and in fact had to edit a letter to a journal with respect to this point before publication was permitted."
- So, to sum up for those who seem to be having trouble understanding a simple explanation: She changed "Gene" to "Jean" so people would stop confusing her gender; and she changed "Lester" to "Mercer" because she divorced her husband whose last name was "Lester" and returned to her maiden name "Mercer." I'm not sure how to make it any clearer, although given past experience, I fully expect to have to explain it again in the future. For some reason, no matter how many times this gets explained, some folks insist on raising the name change to insinuate something about her, although it's never completely clear what they are insinuating.
- Nice story...can you provide proof of that? The above appears to have been provided by a thrid party...what does Mercer Say?
- How can someone who is not licensed in NJ and is not a clinician have any understanding of clinical practice. Mercer is not qualified to practice in NJ or any other state!
- Is this a joke? Did you really just ask what Mercer has to say? I provided you with a link to what Jean wrote on Wikipedia (and also quoted from it). Don't you know how to follow a link? Just click on it. It's not that difficult.
- As for "proof," I'll just say this. All name changes are, I would think, a matter of public record. So, if you're still not satisfied, I would suggest you take a trip down to the relevant NJ department of vital statistics and go look it up.
Still no comments or evidence from Mercer. Instead Mercer seems to be using Linda Rosa as her proxy. Rosa is also not a licensed mental health professional and has no standing in the academic or professional mental health field.
- Actually, I've been busy doing some constructive work, which has had to take precedence over this discussion. As I've said before,I challenge Becker-Weidman to refute the criticisms of his recent paper which were sent to the entire editorial board of Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal and cc'd to him some time ago.[Someone quickly deleted this statement when I made it some weeks ago.] In brief, this very weak paper did not provide evidence to support the effectiveness of DDP. I would be happy to list the criticisms given in that letter if people need to know them, and will do so when I come back from England in ten days, if that seems appropriate.
- If Becker-Weidman is still fretting about my name change, he should realize that copies of the relevant documents are in the hands of his colleague's attorneys, as they have been for some years. As for the letter-to-the-dean business, a cat may look at a king, and anyone may write a letter to a dean; the question is, does the dean answer?
- Meanwhile: no, I am not a clinician, so I am not a licensee in New Jersey or any other state. My work for many years has been as a developmental psychologist and a researcher, which qualifies me to understand the implications of Bowlby's work for child mental health interventions, as well as to understand the implications of different levels of evidence for choice of treatments. Can Becker-Weidman state either that he has similar qualifications, or that he is licensed as a psychologist in New York? I don't want to encourage argument by appeal to authority, but since this question has been raised about me, it may be as well to follow it to its logical conclusion. Jean Mercer
Consensus?
I am going to attempt to reach some consensus here.
This is supposed to be a biographical article on John Bowlby. Since he is principally known for Attachment Theory, an historical description of his contribution (and importance) to Attachment Theory would be most appropriate, but getting into a detailed discussion about the Theory itself is not. Worse still, the discussion of the Theory — and some incidental topics even to the Theory — now take up more space than the discussion of Bowlby or his work. In true encyclopedic fashion, there should be a cross-reference (link) to an article on Attachment Theory, for those more interested in that topic.
I detect that the article is actually being used contrary to Wikipedia culture. Not only is there an edit war going on, but it seems that it arose because the article was being used as an advertising device. And one editor (apparently the same one who needs or wants the advertising) uses a great number of logical fallacies, especially ad hominem, in discussing the subject, and those fallacies have flowed into the article.
The article's discussion of Bowlby himself needs a lot of work, too. A Wiki user who wants to learn about Bowlby won't find much here. And even the parts about Attachment Theory are deficient, misleading, or downright wrong. The references, even, are not appropriate.
I am going to propose that:
(1) the section that is the subject of the edit war be deleted in its entirety and the fight be taken to another article where it is appropriate.
(2) the references be culled to be ones that only have to do with John Bowlby the man.
(3) editing efforts re Attachment Theory be constrained to a short presentation on Bowlby's contributions and links to other relevant articles.
(4) someone make a biographical contribution worth reading.
I will act on proposals (1) and (2) within a few hours, after giving some participants a chance to react to my proposals.
Sarner 14:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- You make several excellent points. I think more details about Bowlby's life would be of interest to all. The material on how Bowlby's theory, Attachment theory, is being used today seems relevant. The material on treatment approaches that use Bowbly's work as a foundation also seem relevant as it demonstrates the power of his theory. I don't see an advertising angle here. Theraplay and the other approaches referenced seem to be pretty widely used and are discussed in various peer-reviwed professional literature and are regular topics of presentation and training at a large number of professional associaitons that have substantial memberships (APA, NASW, etc.).
- I think you are mistaken about the relevance of such usage in this article. It does not help any reader understand Bowlby the man any better, or even the nature of his contribution or historical importance. And that would be true even if the material were true and accurate, which is obviously disputed. The power of Bowlby's theory is a topic for an Attachment Theory article, not a biographical one (except of course to mention that the Theory is widely followed today).
- I could argue strongly against your point about the validity and worth of "Theraplay and the other approaches referenced", but it would not move toward consensus, but away from it. I am not suggesting that you yield on the argument overall, merely that it has no place on Bowlby's page, and that the fight be taken to a more appropriate venue.
- Perhaps the better approach would be to merely mention that Bowlby's theory is widely accepted in the fields of child development, infant mental health, and developmental psychoology and that a variety of widely used therapeutic interventions are based on this theory, with appropriate citations. Then the details can be discussed on associated relevant pages linked...
- I don't see how that would be better. Again, saying how some people have used attachment theory is subject matter for the attachment theory page. Doing what you suggest backs away from consensus and suggests that the original (advertising) approach was a good idea. Obviously that already had disputants. For those that don't agree with what was said in this regard, they are ignored. They then just ring in with their objections again, and the edit war resumes.
- I think that a debate on the topic could be healthy and productive...just somewhere else. Let those who want to find out just about Bowlby use this page. (Reserve the debates here for controversies about Bowlby.) For Wiki readers who want to learn what attachment theory is about and how it is used (and/or abused), go to the attachment theory page. That's what links are for. And that is the way encyclopedia readers usually want to operate.
- How Bowlby's works are used today and how broadly the theory is accepted is a part of his legacy and a credit to his work. I do think mention of his enduring impact on the fields of infant mental health and developmental psychology belongs with his page. There is no advertising involved. Theraplay, and other approaches to treating attachment disorder are facts. That would be like saying that mentioning Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on a page about Aaron Beck is advertising...just not so. The disputants seem largely a fringe group with a specific political agenda, as opposed to merely stating how Dr. Bowlby's work is broadly used in so many areas and has led to various approaches to helping disburbed children. Certainly the details should go else where, but mention belongs here just as mention about psychotherapy and related issues is on the page about Aaron Beck with appropriate links to related pages. Perhaps when there are zealots and fringe groups posting on Wikipedia there is no way to avoid these difficulties. The ACT group are very fringe and off the meter and so known to hound people...I think that is what we've seen here, unfortunately. A simple statement of diverse opinions should always we welcome, but that group seems to only want it's view expressed, which is not the way encyclopedia readers usually want to operate.
- It is apparent now where the real zealotry and stubborness lies. Perhaps you're afraid of engaging in the debate where it should be. I tried to move you toward the only reasonable solution available. Obviously your need for advertising is greater than your courtesy. You also cannot resist name-calling, even when the discussion is conducted respectfully and on a higher plane. Thank you for exposing the true source of the problem.
Yes, the real realotry and stubborness are apparent in Sarner's repeated reverts and distortions. MarkWood
- Justify this claim with a single fact that I've distorted anything. If you can, I will recant and apologize.
Striving Toward Truth
There is nothing truthful to be found in the account of "Use of Bowlby's Theory", but the author of that account insists that the topic be treated here, I will endeavor to make a thoughtful and truthful case. Wikipedia's readers of this article have the right to expect truthful material. It has been suggested that this argument move elsewhere and leave this article for more pertinent discussion of John Bowlby; that has been rejected by the other side. So, for the record:
1. Theraplay and DDP are not evidence-based treatments by any legitimate definition of that term.
2. Such "treatments" are coercive and abusive of children, and have been recognized as such by responsible professionals worldwide.
3. The promoters of such therapies repeatedly display either ignorance of, or lack of acceptance of, long-established principles of child development.
4. The promotion of such "therapies" on Wikipedia is little more than spam.
5. The personal attacks on critics, appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies, reflect the paucity of valid arguments in favor of invented approaches such as DDP.
6. While the existence of such approaches as DDP, Holding Therapy, etc., has to be acknowledged in this debate, they remain quite illegitimate and Wiki readers should be informed that controversy exists.
I have written an account which I think is more illuminating of the facts surrounding the contemporary use of "Bowlby's Theory". I doubt anyone can find anything untrue or impertinent in what I've written. Now we'll see if Arthur Becker-Weidman, or his sock puppets, have anything more to contribute than to engage in a simple revert war.
Sarner 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your points are just wrong and represent your bias. It is silly to go through them point by point as you have no intentionn of being open-minded; ACT and your ilk (Mercer, Rosa, Sarner) have an axe to grind. However, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is not coercive and meets the standards of APSAC and other recognized groups (your point 2). MarkWood
Lies and More Falsehoods
It is obvious that you are in league with the ACT group and another foil for Mercer based on the following. The use of the term "sock-puppet" is the same language used by that fringe group in other posts and now Sarner is exposed as a "sock-puppet" for Mercer and ACT: 1. Your outrageous statement that there is "nothing truthful in the account of "Use of Bowlby's Theory"," All the citations and quotes are facts.
2. There is ample evidence for the effectiveness of the Circle of Security Program, Theraplay, and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Why the ACT group refuses to see this is another symptom of their zealotry.
3. None of the programs listed are coercive by any standards. All the programs cited meet APA, NASW, APSAC and various other standards.
4. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Circle of Security, and the other legitimate programs listed are not "holding therapy," whatever that means.
5. The description of legitimate treatments, such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Theraplay, Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray, Family Therapy, etc certainly belong in Wilipedia as readers of an encyclopedia expect to be able to find facutal descriptions of a variety of people, events, theories, treatments, etc. Again, your trying to censure these listings exposes you for what you are.
Removing legitimate information is vandalism. If you insist on engaging in vandalism I hope the monitors see this and chastise you accordingly. I can see that your earlier attempts to have an open discussion and debate were false and deceitful. I am sorry to see that, as I am sure all the others are. I'd like to hear from Dr. Becker-Weidman, but I suppose he does not want to participate in your silly battles.
- I concur
- Of course you do. Where was the falseness or deceit? Bet you can't point out any specifics. I hope some Wiki monitors do take a look into all this.
Truth Will Out!
Sigh!
First I try to reach a consensus in a respectful manner, with a reasonable proposal that a section about the uses of attachment theory belongs in an article about attachment theory, and I run into an individual who has an agenda.
Then, when it becomes obvious that the quasi-anonymous individual just doesn't get it, I show what it is like to have one's prose edited in a respectful — though fully contrarian — manner, s/he calls me a vandal, and a whole lot of other names.
But in all of that, there is not one refutation of anything in my editing of the article. I went to a lot of trouble to carefully write a few concise paragraphs of encyclopedic ("Wikipedic") prose that improves the topic, and the only respect those paragraphs got was — well, none really. There was no attempt at "improvement" of what I wrote, just a revert, accompanied by some name-calling on the talk page.
I admit not to being terribly surprised by that. I had worked hard to put together a section that was not, from my view, assailable on the grounds of fact or logic. I could have erred, of course, but I had checked my facts. Sure enough, the content of my editing remained uncontroverted. The only apparent recourse was a wholesale "revert" to the version that has been the subject of so much discussion.
There's no way for me to "improve" my own editing unless I get informed editing from someone who is not encephalically challenged (and spelling-challenged, and grammar-challenged). So, I'll undo the reverting and hope we get some serious effort toward consensus based on fact, reason, and civility.
Sarner 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your are not editing, but reverting and removing legit information.
- Wrong. I made a bold edit to improve the section in question. Adding back in the original material was a transparent attempt to put me on the defensive, so that you can say, as you do below, that all I'm trying to do is remove instead of add.
- And, not to leave your charge unanswered, there was nothing "legit" or even legitimate about the information I was faulting in the section in question. It was/is untruthful and spam.
Yes, your continued reverts and deletions are SPAM. Merely repeating what you assert does not make it true...but that is the strategy of ACT and other zealots and fringe groups. If you scream the world is flat loud enough and long enough you hope people will either beleive you or at least take you seriously and feel a need to dispute what are obvioulsly falsehoods and distortions. This is really a waste of everyone's time trying to talk with you. Lots of people here have offered proof, but you refuse to accept it. I am done responding to your rubbish and nonsence.
- Since I've made a case -- reasonably, rationally and repeatedly -- for the edits I've made; since I've asked for -- reasonably, rationally and repeatedly -- evidence of where I was wrong; since every request has been met with bullying, derision, name-calling, bad spelling and bad grammar, and not a scintilla of reason -- the real waste of time has been for any Wiki user who happens innocently upon the John Bowlby article as you've written it.
- Your claim notwithstanding, there has never been any "proof" offered for any claim by your side. The only things your side has ever offered have been an ad hominem claim that a group is "fringe" -- which is proof of nothing -- and an allegory that was devoid of factual content (and so again also proved nothing). Of course I don't accept that; what rational person would?
- So far, my position remains uncontroverted by your side, but you continue to undo my editing work to improve the article, even on the parts that are not in (supposedly) in dispute. And now you admit that you intend to do so without any response. Hmmm. Tell me how that's not the work of a bully-boy. Oh, that's right, you're not responding any more to "rubbish and nonsence [sic]."
- But, let's try one more time anyway. Name one of the "obvioulsly [sic] falsehoods and distortions" I've supposedly uttered.
Reasons for revert
I have given reasons before why the section on "Use of Bowlby's Theory in Practice" is nothing more than advertising. It also is wildly inaccurate, attempting to assert that certain putative therapies are acceptable application of attachment theory.
I am also on record as believing that the entire section is inappropriate for an article about John Bowlby, but the original editor (or his sock puppet) cannot agree with that. Thus, I am left with the task of writing something better than what was better.
I have done so, showing where mainstream psychoanalysis (if not psychology) has taken the approach. I have also treated the fringe, scientifically challenged alternative treatments more respectfully than they actually deserve, taking the trouble to point out succinctly where scientific researchers have found them wanting, and also why responsible clinicians avoid them.
As part of the effort, I also removed the linkspam and reduced the bibliography to just items that would lead Wiki users to useful sources on the subject of this article.
There is still much work to be done to correct the other parts of the article, but I am hoping there are other editors who are willing to ring in and do that work.
I am also attempting to follow the Wiki philosophy of attempting to reach consensus and to follow Wikiquette as much as I understand it. Certainly my intention has not been to engage in an edit or "revert" war, but the other editor (I use that Wiki term here in reference to him only as a courtesy) has left me with little choice to do what I can to protect the integrity of the subject matter and of the Wikipedia itself.
Sarner 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Corrections to Fringe edits----------------
The "revisions" are by a member of ACT and and clearly represent a biased position. I have left the false information on the page and added correct information. His/her characterizations are untrue, unfounded, and represent the position of a fringe zealot group Dr. Mercer and ACT.
I am attempting to continue to follow the Wiki approach and reach concensus there, but I don't see this group being able to tolerate divergent and main stream opinions. Dr. Marvin and many others have voiced strong support. I am sorry to see the Wiki page being hijacked by a fringe zealot group for their own personal purposes and agenda. It would protect the integrity of this process to leave what is there alone and add any material that may enhance the information.
The latest "revisions" have been made by a promoter of a fringe psychotherapy and the opinions expressed therein (and on this talk page, too) are not only biased, but ungrammarical, poorly spelled, lacks attention to detail, ignorant, and spam. The surrey with the fringe on top is parked in the environs of Buffalo, NY.
If Dr Marvin has "voiced strong support" produce the evidence of it. Quote him, preferably where the quote can be independently verified. Until you do that, this is just putting words in his mouth, which you have no right to do. And while you're at it, you should identify and quote the "many others", too, who supposedly endorse DDP
An interesting approach to "concensus" [sic] -- just merging your version with mine. That really enlightens Wiki readers!
And listing DDP and yourself and Hughes up there with Lieberman and Dozier, et al, and their work is hubris of the first rank. The others are real scientists, with substantial research accomplishments that are widely recognized by their peers. You and Hughes have achieved nothing (to include DDP) even remotely comparable. Same goes for Jernberg and "Theraplay".
It is hilarious to see you disclaim that your contributions are not advertising when nearly all they do is talk up DDP, DDP, DDP.
I can justify each and every sentence I've made in the article (and in fact have already done so). If you want to challenge me on any of them, be specific and I'll justify again. I'm going to hold your substantive "contributions" to the same standard; any that you don't justify are going to get challenged by me, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Sarner 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for Revert for Accurancy
ACT and Mercer's "sock puppets," (to use a term you and others of ACT seem to like to use) strike again with lies and falshoods and attempts to censure balanced and truthful accounts. What a shame for Wikipedia. I cannot answer all of your ridiculous and false statements nor do I feel it necessary to defend Dr. Becker-Weidman or Dr. Huhges. Dr. Hughes was recently on a well repected panel of presenter that included both Drs. Steele, Dr. Foshia, and several other well-respected and substantial reserchers and practitioners who recongized the work of Dr. Hughes.
Daniel J. Siegel, MD, Associate Clniical Professor, UCLA School fo Medicine, renowed researcher and author of The Developing Mind: The Neurobiology of Interpersonal Behavior recognized the value and legitimacy of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when he wrote, "An informative assemby of chapters by people working on the frontlines to help children create the attachments that will help them thrive. Written from the point of view of what is practical and informed by new findings in science, the book will be of use to a wide variety of caregivers and professionals. Here is a wealth of hard-won wisdom that will enrich the lives of many."
Let's see, "...Accurancy [sic]...falshoods [sic]...censure [sic]...Huhges [sic]...well repected panel of presenter [sic]...recongized [sic]...Associate Clniical Professor [sic]...School fo Medicine [sic]...assemby [sic]..." Lots of careful attention to detail there.
Has Dr. Marvin changed his name to Dr. Siegel? (No doubt you know...you pay such close attention to name changes.) You claimed that Dr. Marvin strongly endorses DDP. When pressed for the evidence of that, you produce a jacket blurb by Dr. Siegel. You can see the problem with that, can't you? You made up the claim about Dr. Marvin, didn't you?
Of course you don't intend to defend anyone here. You can't. You're making it up as you go along. And Dr. Hughes was on a panel with real people is supposed to be a testimony to the legitimacy and value of DDP? This is the kind of reasoning one sees in junior high or middle school.
And you still haven't pointed out one single lie or falsehood in my version of the section in question. Or even a misspelling, though I caught one and corrected it myself.
Give this up. You aren't up to it.
Sarner 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Proof of Bias and and Closed Mindedness
As a representative of ACT and Mercer Sarner's statements clearly represent a closed minded and biased view as an advocate of a fringe group. He keeps the reference to Mercer as "relevant" while removing other references and links, just one example. (See his silly and off-point comments above). Too bad for Wiki.
- Mercer's book is at least about attachment, and she is a researcher. But, I'm willing to remove it, along with the others.
- And to answer your other (biased and close-minded) charges, I admit to being biased in favor of science and reason and their application to understanding human behavior. I also confess to being close-minded to those who argue with logical fallacies and reject the importance of truth and evidence in judging the appropriateness of treatments, especially for children.
- I have found the really close-minded people are those who reject reason and science, leaving others with no way to reasonably judge the truth or falsity of claims.
- The most ironic part of these exchanges is to call someone, as you have, or groups who are committed to science and evidence-based treatment to be "fringe". Bowlby would be rolling in his grave. That would be a same commentary on mental-health if such be fringe. Of course, in reality, science and EBT are quite mainstream; making judgments about the sufficiency of evidence is part of the process. Only those who can't pass the judgments of reality complain about "bias" and resort to name-calling.
Previous comments continue to be off point and biased
Mercer is not a researcher in the fields of Attachment Theory...I see no publications of relevant research by this person.
- Dr Mercer has a CV as long as your arm -- which even you have admitted. And the (2006) book you pointed to was about...attachment! If you hadn't knee-jerked your revert, you would have noticed that I had moved toward consensus and compromise by scratching her book from the bibliography; your revert put it back in. I guess I'll put it back in, too.
- Sarner 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Siegel is a well respected researcher at UCLA and finds the material that ACT and its' spokes persons, such as Sarner, find "biased," such as Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy to be relevant, mainstream, and fully congruent with generally accepted practice and theory.
- I doubt very strongly that Dr. Siegel would be comfortable with your biased research in the book he blurbed for. See if you can get him to comment on the quality of the research backing DDP. Let's see if he wants to put his credibility on the line for something that uses the RADQ!
- And while you're at it, let's see if you can make good on your claim that Dr. Marvin "strongly endorses" DDP as "evidence-based therapy." That's the worse kind of bias, BTW, putting words in someone else's mouth.
- Sarner 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see it is just not worth trying to have a dialogue here as Sarner is not interested in truth, compromise, or facts. Sarner seems to only have one agenda, the ACT agenda. Continued "dialogue" is clearly not possible.
- Where is your truth, compromise, or facts? Your "dialogue" is just rants and raves and wild claims, with nary a fact to be found.
- You can claim all you want, and even put words in my mouth, but it won't change the reality: DDP is a fringe psychotherapy that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. To make such a big point of promoting it in an article on John Bowlby is itself "off point" and nothing but spamming. You have been unable to justify anything you say in the section of the article in question. That section needs to go away, but until it does, I will do what I can to defend the truth.
- Sarner 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Spoken like a "true believer" of ACT, fringe group that includes Mercer, that has not credibility with anyone in the mental health field or among anyone licensed to practice, which you are must not be; nor, I would expect, do you have any relevent degree or background in providing treatment, attachment research, or related expertise. Too bad Wiki can be hijacked by such zealots.
- There you go again. You state as a fact that Mercer has "not [sic] credibility with anyone in the mental health field or among anyone licensed to practice". What evidence do you have of that fact? Now you're putting words in the mouths of everyone in the profession. BTW, found that supportive statement by Dr. Marvin, yet?
- Sarner 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Spamming
Ignorance was showing here when Buffalo-area "editor" (aka Dr Art?) once more reverted my attempts to improve this article by falsely claiming the improvements were:
a. the spamming version was being "censured" [sic].
b. the non-spamming improvements were by a fringe group.
The reversions to the spamming version have also been routinely eliminating attempts to improve the prose in the biographical sections and by working on the bibliographic information.
First, I have had no intention to censure the spamming version. You can only censure people, and I had no intention of doing that, either.
Second, my improvements were done by me, not a group.
Third, dismissing my improvements because I am putatively "fringe" is specious and arrogant, as well as false. It is not a legitimate basis for editing.
Fourth, eliminating all my editing through a revert -- and after only 2 minutes -- is knee-jerk and unconsensus-like.
Please do not revert to your spamming version anymore. Please try to reach consensus by adding material you insist upon. And because that material is likely to be controversial, please justify your additions, piece by piece, here on the talk page. I will discuss it before improving what you add. If you want to delete something already on the page, please discuss it here, so I can have an opportunity to justify my information.
Finally, it would be nice if you at least signed your contributions, at least as directed at the bottom of the edit page. At least that would keep things from being confused as to authorship. I'd ask for you to identify yourself by name, but its probably too much to expect, and I'm not sure I'd trust your self-identification.
Sarner 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But you are a member of ACT!
- Even if true, so what? Sarner 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the other
I prefer the document before Sarner edited it. It seems more complete. Perhaps if Sarner could add his material to the other version, that would be more appropriate than his continual deletions and reversions.
- Interesting. If you are not an alias of the "editor" with the spamming version, and you have been following this, then you will know that my "continual" modifications are to protect an improvement I did what seems a long time ago. I had done exactly what you suggest, and here we are!
- As for it being "more complete", the current spam version was created by just inserting the spam into my version (at that time). For an encyclopedic article, such a thing doesn't reasonably qualify as "more complete", even if the inserted material was accurate (which it wasn't in this case). It either overwhelms the reader or wastes their time or, worse, misleads them.
- The object of an encyclopedic article is to give people a good overview of the subject and avoid digressions into subjects which themselves make good subjects for other articles. Boy, does the author of the spam version appear not to get that! He is apparently so focused on getting DDP mentioned in so many places on Wikipedia (probably for google hits?) that he is willing to make this article unuseful to people who might actually want to learn about John Bowlby.
Sorry, I don't see it the way you do. I don't read your versions as "improvements," but as attempts to censor. I agree that the object of an encyclopedic article is to give people a good overview of the subject and that is how I read the other's material; not as a digression. I can see you won't agree with me as I don't agree with you and I guess it will have to remain that way; that we will have to "agree to disagree."
- "agreeing to disagree" is a cop-out. Either your arguments hold up to scrutiny, or they do not. Of course, you might try making some arguments, rather than just general assertions.
- I have said it over and over again: I think this dispute should be moved elsewhere and leave poor old Bowlby alone. I have never suggested that the arguments should be discontinued (which is what I can only guess is what you, as part of the Buffalo/Williamsville crowd, mean by censorship). Any reasonable person should be able to tell the difference between venue and censorship.
- BTW, why do you keep signing as PPeterson, when your user account is actually DPeterson? Forget what alias you are using?
Enough already
I've been using Wiki for a long time now...never bothered to set up a name as I only used Wiki to get information...never felt the need to edit or comment till now. This Sarner person appears to be deleting information on this page because of some misguided notions. If he is a spokesperson or member or connectetd with that ACT group, then, really, his contributions are just extremist nonsense. I like the version of the other person and would encourage Sarner to either leave it alone or just add what Sarner thinks is missing.
- And, if I'm not connected with ACT, then my contributions may not be "extremist nonsense"? What kind of reasoning is that?
- Since this Wood person, if that's his name, appears to be from LA, obviously s/he is not a direct sock-puppet of the Buffalo crowd, but obviously they are working together to keep the truth out of this article and spamming nonsense in it. Were you asked to come riding to the rescue? (Thinking it could keep Buffalo from violating the Three-Revert-Rule, I would guess.)
- The only thing new added was to revert my work, claiming to "repair" my "vandalism". Even if I were stubborn and wrong (which I am not in the latter, though I may be the former), Wikipedia does not regard this as vandalism. But the term has been repeatedly misused by the Buffalo/Williamsville crowd to try to mischaracterize my editing.
- If you really felt strongly enough that my "deletions" were "because of some misguided notions" to write here after doing your revert, you could have at least said what you thought those misguided notions were. I think you were either just being rude, or just couldn't think of any defensible arguments.
So I guess you are connected with, or at least sympathetic with, the fringe group ACT. It shows.
Sarner member of Fringe Group
Yes, you are right. Sarner is a member of ACT and in league with Mercer and Rosa. Clearly Sarner is biased and acting to implement an agenda rather than the free flow of information.
- I see that on the ACT site. Too bad. Sarner seems to want to hide that agenda and is intent on pushing a specific agenda.
- PPeterson
- To my mind his membership in this fringe advocacy group discredits what Sarner has to say here. I now understand Sarner's agenda and it is biased. Sarner does not seem to have any real interest in dialogue; hence the constant reverts. Sarner mislabels, misrepresents, and distorts facts and truths to make the points Sarner wants. Sorry to see this acted out in this way.
- MarkWood
- Of course you all think that membership in an alleged group is grounds for dismissing an argument. It's easier than trying to think through a position. Demonizing people is the stock and trade of attachment therapists of the fringe variety. (BTW, who are you? What is your affiliation to Dr. Art?)
- Give public examples of anything in my article editing which is mislabelled. Or misrepresented. Or distorted. Or even non-NPOV. I'll consider what you have to say. And other people will be able to see how each of us reasons.
This Sarner person keeps resorting to the same old tired arguments that the ACT people do. As a "sock puppet" for Mercer Sarner continues to distort, misrepresent, and make outright incorrect statements. Answering those, just because the statements are made, is like arguing with someone who says the world is flat, or with a two-year old. ACT is a fringe group, not respected or even taken into account by any groups. Sarner keeps reverting to his old version without making any attempt to add to the current one, which, to me, has lots of useful and important information about J. Bowlby, his theory, his work, and the implications of his work.
The material mentioned about effective treatment based on attachment theory belongs just like a discussion of effective treatments based on cognitive-behavioral theory (Beck) would belong in such an article. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is accepted by Dr. Siegel and endorsed by him and others. There are several research articles about it's efficacy; while not "double blind," those studies clearly show the efficacy of this approach...but Sarner will never accept that...it goes again the dogma of ACT.
- This Wood person is nothing but a front for the Williamsville crowd, using the same old tired fallacies that they've used here from the beginning.
- The entire crowd, Wood included, are unable to point to a single distortion, misrepresentation or incorrect statement I have made. And I have offered to correct any errors.
- In my version of the section in question, I did accept -- for the sake of argument -- that a discussion of effective (and non-effective) therapies could be presented in the article. I even listed a number of approaches which appear to have wide acceptance as being evidence based. The problem, of course, came when I did not list DDP among them, because it is not in the same class as the others. It appears to me by all that has gone on here that the real point of the efforts by the Williamsville crowd is to get DDP accepted by the general public before it has been through the peer-review process. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for such an illegitimate end.
- An old jacket blurb by Daniel Siegel is hardly peer review, especially when it appears before the "research" was supposedly published. The claim (which you put in the article!) that Robert Marvin endorses DDP has never been substantiated. I challenge you to cite the "several research articles about it's [sic] efficacy"; I've never heard of them in the psychological literature; a PsychLit search doesn't turn up any.
- C'mon, the only argument you and the rest of the Williamsville crowd has got is that I'm supposedly part of a fringe advocacy group. And you can't even back that one up with facts.
You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact. I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company. MarkWood
- But it is not a fact that ACT is a fringe group, or that membership in it disqualifies anyone from contributing to Wiki, or that a "zealot" is necessarily wrong.
- And I don't believe for a minute that you aren't just doing the bidding of the Williamsville crowd. Are you claiming that you just happened upon this article and controversy, without any prompting from anyone else?
ACT is quite the fringe group; not recognized by APA, NASW, APSAC, or any other professional group. We can see the personal attacks Sarner makes in a futile attempt to discredit any legitimate criticism of ACT, the Mercer crowd, or Sarner's bias and zealotry.
No Point in arguing
You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact. I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company. MarkWood
- There is no point, MarkWood, in your trying to convince Sarner. ACT is a fringe group of zealots comprised of a number of people, but particularily Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer. You cannot argue with such people. They have a biased and extremist agenda. So, save your breath.
- Marching orders from Williamsville.
Yes, I agree, there can be no discussion or reasoned debate with that group. PPeterson
You are right. Sarner even denies credit for his own statements. There is just no way to talk with those ACT people. I remember hearing Dr. Marvin talk at a national conference and his glowing and positive statements regarding the work of Hughes and Becker-Weidman, not that Sarner would accept that. So, PPeterson, you are right; debate with them is futile.
- Please leave the record here alone; the forum gets to speak for itself. You don't sign your posts (when all you have to do is type in four tildes). I get to do the same, especially when replying to unsigned ones. I did it to make a point. Of course, you now have made a second and third point for me.
- So you remember Dr. Marvin talking and giving "glowing and positive statements" about DDP? What conference was that? Would there be an audio version of that? Give us something to confirm your statement. If you don't, then the record will show that this is not evidence at all. Personally, I will conclude you are putting words in his mouth.
- Futility, in this forum, is trying to reach consensus with the Williamsville Crowd and their fellow-travelers.
No Point in arguing II
You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact. I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company.MarkWood
- There is no point, MarkWood, in your trying to convince Sarner. ACT is a fringe group of zealots comprised of a number of people, but particularily Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer. You cannot argue with such people. They have a biased and extremist agenda. So, save your breath.
Yes, I agree, there can be no discussion or reasoned debate with that group. PPeterson
You are right. Sarner even denies credit for his own statements. There is just no way to talk with those ACT people. I remember hearing Dr. Marvin talk at a national conference and his glowing and positive statements regarding the work of Hughes and Becker-Weidman, not that Sarner would accept that. So, PPeterson, you are right; debate with them is futile.
- To the readers of this section, please see the above section to see responses to the above comments. (Don't want to repeat them all here and make this huge talk page any longer)
You are both right...there is no way to convince Mercer and crew. Mercer seems more circumspect now and has Sarner and Rose do the speaking. I understand this may have something to do with letters to the dean of the college and other correspondance that have caused Mercer to be more careful, but to use other spokespersons. PPeterson
- Since you claim to be so well informed on such matters, please answer these questions about what you've just said:
- 1. What evidence do you have that I or anyone else am a spokesperson for Mercer on this talk page or any other place? Same for "Rose" (or Rosa, allowing for your atrocious spelling and proofreading)?
- 2. What evidence do you have that anyone named "Rose" (or Rosa) has ever made comments to this talk page, or any other Wiki talk page for that matter?
- 3. What evidence do you have the Mercer is being "circumspect"?
- 4. Have you seen any letter(s) from the dean of any college which directs "Mercer to be more careful" or to use spokespersons? Do you have any evidence that letters to the dean of Prof. Mercer's college actually caused her to be "more careful" in her public utterances?
- 5. Why do you persist in attributing my signed commentary to other persons?
- 6. Are you now, or have you ever been, Arthur Becker-Weidman? If not, who are you?
Discussion of Relevant material
You are on the ACT website as a contributor...you are an active member of that group....fact. I am not part of the "Williamsville crowd," whatever that is, just a concerned user of Wiki who is disturbed by its being abused by zealots like Sarner and company.MarkWood
- There is no point, MarkWood, in your trying to convince Sarner. ACT is a fringe group of zealots comprised of a number of people, but particularily Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer. You cannot argue with such people. They have a biased and extremist agenda. So, save your breath.
Yes, I agree, there can be no discussion or reasoned debate with that group. PPeterson
You are right. Sarner even denies credit for his own statements. There is just no way to talk with those ACT people. I remember hearing Dr. Marvin talk at a national conference and his glowing and positive statements regarding the work of Hughes and Becker-Weidman, not that Sarner would accept that. So, PPeterson, you are right; debate with them is futile.
You are both right...there is no way to convince Mercer and crew. Mercer seems more circumspect now and has Sarner and Rosa do the speaking. I understand this may have something to do with letters to the dean of the college and other correspondance that have caused Mercer to be more careful, but to use other spokespersons. PPeterson
- Very interesting. Acting like terrorist(s), the Williamsville Crowd (which may actually consist of just one person) have assaulted Wikipedia database space by repeating some comments in a section in another section, omitting some comments made in the original. Anyone interested in reading the comments in this section should also refer to the other comments made in the above sections that were omitted. Poor Wikipedia, being subjected to such juvenile practices. Sarner 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sir John Bowlby's work has such wide applicability. It is the dominant theory used today in the fields of developmental psychology and the dominant theory in such treatment areas as infant mental health and the treatment of disorders of attachment. Effective treatments based on his work clearly belong here and I suggest you keep your focus on that and not trying to convince the Sarner, Rosa, Mercer clique. I find the article as is quite informative and helpful. Keep up the good work!
- Patting yourself on the back? You've said this before. It is no justification for the linkspam and self-promotional commentary put right into the article. You might try to justify the statements you make in the article as well as here. Your repeated refusals are just making the case that the primary reason you don't justify them is that you can't. You can make a start by answering the questions posed above...or retracting your slanders. Sarner 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
QUESTIONS FOR SARNER REGARDING HIS/HER STATUS AS MEMBER OF FRINGE GROUP
Some importnat questions you've still not responded to: 1. Are you a member of ACT?
2. Isn't it true that you have a financial relationship and business relationship with Mercer adn Rosa?
3. Isn't it also true that you have a relationship with ACT?
4. Who is on the Board of ACT?
5. If ACT is not a fringe group and is recognized by mainstream groups, provide evidence that the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, The American Academy of Pediatrics, APSAC, or any other large national professional group recognizes and includes the ACT organization as a recognized member.
6. Isn't it true that ACT, as a fringe advocacy group, and your actions as a member or participant in it, reflect a specific agenda?
7. Do you have regular communications with Mercer regarding this page and comments, plans, and strategies?
8. The various other questions you've not responded to I won't repeat here as they are listed above.
- First, all of my questions to you (in your various incarnations) fell into two categories:
- 1. Determining whether you, or the other anonymous contributors, were in reality the same person. Known in Wikipedia editing as "sock puppetry", doing that is considered rude and in some circumstances against Wiki policy. Otherwise, I don't care who or what you are.
- 2. Asking for evidence of the statements made, especially in the article. I dispute many of the statements, of course, but am willing to be persuaded by evidence. Thus, I have no interest in why you made those statements, though I have an opinion that it's for spamming purposes.
- Your questions, however, are entirely inappropriate here, as would be answering them, because they have nothing to do with the Wiki article. You may think that membership in a group, or having an "agenda," is relevant to the truth or falseness of statements made, but the fallacy of that is obvious to almost anyone else.
- So, go elsewhere for the answers to your questions (google would be a good start) and try, as much as you're able, to stick to the subject here (John Bowlby) and argue your position with an eye toward consensus.
- Also, if you (or the others, if there are any others) don't know the answers to your own questions, you (or the others, if there are any others) shouldn't have made some of the statements you (or the others, if there are any others) made on this page. It was, at the very least, reckless.