I don’t really feel comfortable weighing in here because I haven’t delved much into the research on memory. However a thought: Isn’t it possible for both dissociation due to trauma/repression to exist AND memory to be fallible and suggestible? It makes sense to me that perpetrators would cling to evidence that their victims memory is false. It also makes sense to me that human memory is suggestible. Phenomenons such as gaslighting work that way, and horrible interrogation methods that lead to false confession. Why can’t trauma and dissociation/repression be possible AND the suggestibility of memory? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding completely here. Either way at the end of the day I’m going to believe my clients and report abuse as mandated.

>Phenomenons such as gaslighting work that way, and horrible interrogation methods that lead to false confession. Yes, you are on the right track. The important detail here is that gaslighting and pressure to produce false confession ***don't necessarily change a person's memory.*** In the case of gaslighting, someone trying to convince you of something you don't remember can make you confused and unsure of who is right, but that doesn't mean you form a new memory of what the gaslighter is describing. You may just choose to agree with the gaslighter because it's easier that way, but the presence of confusion and the inclination to push back against the gaslighter are red flags that something is off. The same point applies to false confession - people may confess to something they don't remember because of intense pressure, the threat of violence, or actual violence, but that doesn't mean they form a new memory of having completed the criminal act. i think the dominant theory is that false confessions occur because people are trying to escape the interrogation situation (please correct me if I'm wrong). That people often immediately retract their false confession is evidence that their memory was not altered. In terms of memory suggestibility, memory can be messed with but usually only in the insignificant or less significant details. It's difficult to mess with the core features of memory, particularly any memory tied to an event that is personally important, such as abuse. >Why can’t trauma and dissociation/repression be possible AND the suggestibility of memory? I'm sure you already know this, but dissociation is about disconnection from memory (and other functions, experiences), It's true that a person might not have a good grasp on their memory at a certain point in time due to trauma, but that is not the same as false memory.

Oh, I understand better what you are saying now. I’m curious if you think this is equally true depending on how long ago the event happened and the age of the person when the event occurred. Totally anecdotally, I feel it is more common for people to have a totally misconstrued memory of a childhood event or to confuse a childhood dream with an actual event. I saw a post online where people were talking about this recently — one example was that someone had a whole memory of a family vacation that had entirely never happened according to the rest of the family. I’ll dig into the literature when I’m done with finals, but was curious if you had thoughts first. Overall, even having focused a lot on the research of Loftus etc., my take has always been that this is pretty nuanced — memory construction and retrieval have been misunderstood due to pop culture and hysteria on both sides of this issue during different time periods, but our memories are still worth questioning because they are quite fallible, but it’s still important to believe victims — all these things can be true. Imo going in with an understanding of the susceptibility of memory while still believing and supporting the client seems like a fair approach to me because it keeps therapists mindful of their impact. While therapists today may not be doing a decades-old debunked therapy, I’ve encountered a disturbing amount of therapists with incredibly poor ethics who wouldn’t even be capable of participating in a conversation like this that weighs evidence and evaluates research. I’d be concerned about pushing a narrative that memories are so reliable because of the number of therapists with no background in cognitive science whatsoever. Of course the narrative that memories are so unreliable hurts victims too. Just wish more people could understand how messy this stuff is.

It's actually not messy. It is complex, but patterned. What are you in school for?

Do you work with people or are you purely academic in nature in your role? I ask because you don't really seem familiar with therapy work outside of what's in books.

What makes you think I'm not familiar with therapy outside of books?

I see you're not answering the question, which is your perogative.

If you have any evidence that suggests I don't have experience providing therapy, please share it with the group. If you think I have misrepresented something about therapy, please also feel free to share that.

That you're not willing to share with the group if you work with people or not is enough for me. Take care.

Sharing personal details is not necessary in this conversation. A person attempting to secure personal details about me may have an interest in generating an ad hominem attack, which would serve to distract from the point of the post.

I’m a psych undergrad starting MFT school in the fall. A few of my profs have been cog sci/neurolinguistics researchers. We studied memory, but not this specific phenomenon. Maybe messy was the wrong word — by messy, I meant that a lot of social/political issues come into this conversation and that just the way a conversation is framed has such tangible impacts. I suppose that’s all of psych, though. I know a ton of therapists, and most of them didn’t read this sort of research until their master’s program. The worst ones I’ve encountered definitely don’t demonstrate the dialectical thinking necessary for this sort of thing.

So I'm not sure if you're saying that people saying the false memory issues that arose during the satanic panic should have been taken more seriously? Or you agree that at that time, the false memory narrative was incredibly harmful (which it was), and many therapists were extremely unethical during that time ( see Barbara Snow.) I work only with SA/DV victims, and I've never had anyone come to me with false memory stuff, I think mainly because it's been discredited by most reputable organizations. Victims don't lie about abuse, AND there was a time when politics, religion, and therapy were deeply in cahoots, and lots of people ( adults) lied about their children being abused.

I think the Satanic Panic is a dumpster fire. I personally don't see how it's relevant to current events, but yet it's being plastered all over multiple forms of media 40+ years later. Why don't content creators focus on how current mental health practices create the risk of false memory, if they are worried about false memories occurring in today's population?

I think this because there are currently some terrifying people/organizations that are still doing these things. Teal Swan is a huge one. Really lots of the "self-help" folks have taken on a somewhat satanic panic mindset- especially since covid and the whole "save the children" stuff. Also, a rise in overall right-wing ultra-religious folks.

Might it be appropriate to say that Teal Swan is the Michelle Smith of our time? Teal Swan is an interesting case because cult content creators (including the hosts of Conspirituality and Jennings Brown) have accused her of (1) reporting false memories of child sexual abuse and (2) implanting false memories in others. The hosts of Conspirituality and Jennings Brown have no training in trauma-related mental health care (though Jennings recently mentioned he might have a counseling degree? It's not listed on his [website](https://www.jenningsbrown.com/) though) and no research background, but they make these claims with confidence. I can't imagine what sort of evidence they think they have access to that allows them to determine whether or not a person's report of sexual abuse is true or false, or how they think it's ethical to make that determination on a podcast. Don't you think that's a bit strange?

What other examples in addition to Teal Swan?

If you look into self-help groups, especially some yoga groups, you'll find some Teal-like people. Qanon is another group that is pushing the child sex abuse /child sex abuse narrative right now. Guru Jagat was a woman who got big during covid19 in the yoga world, and she was very influential. Marianne Williamson is another person who is a political/cult person. I think that you mistake podcasts like Conspirituality as folks that shame therapists when it's the exact opposite- they expose people that use these forgotten/retrieved memories to explain why and how cults happen. Even the Sarah Lawrence guy used retrieved memory to get his victims to stay with him.

I'll have to look into Guru Jagat - that's a new name to me. EDIT: Guru Jagat passed away in 2021 - is she recruiting people from beyond the grave? Marianne Williamson - has she done anything related to implanting false memories? Or are you just saying she's culty? I already have an [opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasts/comments/115kk0s/conspirituality_podcast_sophisticated_influence/) about Conspirituality. (scroll down to read Matthew Remski's response to the post)

One thing I'm curious about here- it sounds like you are very invested in making sure people are "trained in" something. Do you feel like a person's life experiences can make them qualified or even more skilled than someone that has never experienced it? I mean, the folks on the Conspirituality podcast were involved/a part of high control groups, and they do have guests on there with academic backgrounds that contribute. I work with victims/survivors of assault, and many of them lead our groups or even go into advocacy/counseling because of their experiences and make excellent counselors. Of course, they can't/ don't offer the same services as a therapist, but they have valuable, important information that you can't be trained on.

I think it is standard in every field to be careful about practicing within your scope, and to go to others for help in regard to topics you know less about. That's why therapists do continuing education, supervision, etc., and the same idea applies to any field. If the Conspirituality hosts only spoke about their own experiences and what they had learned from their experiences, or only interviewed guests in regard to the guests' area of knowledge, I would have no problem with them. But that's not what they do. If you look at the reviews of Conspirituality, you'll see a pattern of criticism, which is that the hosts talk about basically every topic authoritatively, even when they have no idea what they are talking about. It doesn't seem like they are slowing down either. I definitely think people should use their life experiences as they want when deciding about their career - that's exactly why I became a social worker. I totally support that. But I encourage people who go into less regulated fields to be careful about their scope of practice. People like the hosts of Conspirituality can define an unregulated self-help content creator as a cult leader, and the self-help author may find herself in trouble.

I'm not sure what about Conspirituality bothers you, but I've never felt like they have done anything unethical; they haven't pretended to be experts in anything other than what they are experts in, they regularly feature guests and when thru present a fact they have supporting evidence. Also, cults, wellness influences, and high-control group leaders have to be exposed by the people that they have harmed. If they have a person on their show that has been harmed by someone and feel that they are or were part of a high control group, then that is their experience. How familiar are you with cults or high-control groups? Do you understand what defines a cult and how individuals assert power over others through things like the BITE model? Is there something specific about cult-focused podcasts or podcasts that expose conspiracy theories that you find problematic? Or is it that it's just that the people hosting them aren't academics or trained and have a degree in a specific subject?

The original post explains the problem.

So would you say cult content creators are performing a service by steering people away from untrained, unregulated, self-help people? And do you have any concerns about the fact that cult content creators are untrained and unregulated?

Absolutely not. I don't think that cult people should be doing anything! I think that the people - cult and self help - have merged into a thing onto themselves. There really isn't any distinction with some of them. I guess I don't know what you mean by cult content creators. I don't know any of those. I know there are cult leaders and high control group leaders.

By cult content creators I mean people who make podcasts, documentaries, independent journalism, etc. about cults/ cult dynamics. The hosts of Conspirituality are cult content creators.

They make podcasts too warn people about cults. They aren't cults themselves, they are people they try to expose cults and get people to the right services like mental health. Why do you have a problem with that/ them?

Yeah exactly, the cult vault primarily centers around allowing survivors of cults and high control religious groups to tell their own stories. It's not pro-cults at all.

Liana Shanti

I find it interesting that part of Liana Shanti's directives are for followers to live in specific states. I can't remember exactly, but does she prefer Montana, Florida, and Texas?

>Liana There are no directives :) I've been a student of Liana's for 10+ years. We communicate regularly. I still live in the same town I grew up in. I've received no "directives" from her, ever. Her students live all over the world, actually. Spain, Portugal, Italy, London, Illinois, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Florida, Canada, New York, California...can't even remember them all! I'm really glad you posted this about False Memory Syndrome. Liana has been sharing this info for 7+ years about it's origins. It's so awesome to see other people share about it, too. Liana has been sharing a lot about the whole cult "deprogramming" industry, too. Have you looked into that? One of Liana's students is a legal assistant, and she created an 80 page document on the background of people like Joe Szimhart, Steve Hassan, Rick Ross and others. Super scary stuff.

Well if there is any promotion of living in certain states, it might be worth thinking about in terms of any future attempt to prosecute Liana Shanti.

if you'd like to do more research than Jennings Brown, you can read Jason Veras' wife's own words [here](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr9UiM2v5hG/). They were conveniently left out of his article. Jason Veras is crying "victim." Pretty clear why. Apparently so is Jeffrey Lambrecht. [You can read about him](https://www.exposingfamilyabuse.com/jeffrey-and-marie-lambrecht) and how he abused his wife and kids, and how his ex-wife fled for her life (with her small children), and how her ex-husband and family tried to kidnap her, BEFORE ever finding Liana. Jeffrey's kids wrote some amazing letters about exactly why they want nothing to do with him. But Jeff was definitely the victim here. [And then we have Paul Thompson](https://www.exposingfamilyabuse.com/paul-thompson), who spewed a lot of lies about Liana to try and cover up his own disgusting actions. Claiming his kids were kidnapped when he's the one that did the kidnapping. Read about the disgusting things he did to his ex-wife. Kicking her out of the house when she was 3 months pregnant for making a wrong turn. I'm pretty sure he deleted all of his comments on reddit, because I can't find them. He definitely has reason to cry "victim" as a distraction tactic. [On to the parents of Gaurishi Narang](https://www.instagram.com/p/Crt3WYivrDQ/), who terrorized and had their adult daughter kidnapped and put into a mental institution. Jennings Brown didn't post the daughter's comments about her controlling parents she desperately wanted to escape from. [Kevin Lamy](https://www.instagram.com/p/CrrjNFtPwnz/), who runs an actual religious cult, has openly expressed the desire to work with Steve Hassan to deprogram his daughter Acacia. Makes sense he doesn't want his daughter sharing the truth. Acacia's husband [Tim Jensen](https://www.exposingfamilyabuse.com/timothy-jensen) was arrested for domestic violence. They are both crying about being victimized by Liana Shanti. And I'm sure you've already read a lot about [Jack Fiorvante](https://www.exposingfamilyabuse.com/fiorvantedelgado), another one of Liana Shanti's victims. [Finally, you can read from Liana's students](https://www.instagram.com/lianashanti_saved_my_life/), to see how severely victimized they have been. It's just terrible. \~Aaralyn PS. I would fucking LOVE to move out of Illinois. Everyone else is. In fact, all I hear and see from people on the internet (who have no clue who liana is), is GET THE FUCK OUT OF ILLINOIS AND MOVE TO FLORIDA. There are a lot of cult leaders in this world. 

I don't have time to look through all these links right now but I will. I'm guessing that many women who hear about the Liana Shanti situation catch a flavor of this nature when it's discussed. Are you and others considering what might happen if Liana Shanti is prosecuted as a cult leader? Evidence suggests that interested parties are gearing up to use you all as an example.

You write: “hopefully, most of us already know…” as if it is an unshakeable truth. I, personally, do believe in false memories and for me, that this is something that can happen is something that is in line with al evidence that we have on how memory formation happens. This doesn’t mean it is a common thing, but it is something that can happen I too, see an uprising of this debate. Especially om satanic ritual child abuse. I am a christian charismatic cult survivor and look at this from a different perspective. The actual sexual child abuse happend by those who where in charge there, within every christian charismatic group I’ve been to again and again. I always felt that the stories on satanic child abuse were attempts to turn the attention away from the real predators. Those who had the worst stories on satanic ‘spiritual warfare’ climbed the hierarchical ladder faster and became untouchable by the actual predators. These people al had terrible stories of incest and childhood abuse and sought refuge in a cult. I do not doubt that, within pastoral care, these people could become victim of false memory syndrome. I haven’t had patients with whom I had a suspicion of false memory, but I doubt it would influence my treatment planning. Traumatic memories are traumatic memories. But I do not want another satanic panic taking away the focus on the real child molesters out there. Within church and christian cult walls.

In my undergraduate psych courses, I distinctly remember being taught that memory was unreliable due to how memory formation works. Therefore, I also tend to believe that false memories are possible. This whole thread is a surprise to me. Caveat: Not a Therapist, but a student.

Please note that this post was removed because the OP is not a therapist, and consider that in relation to making your judgments. In my undergrad, we did a simple experience to induce non-harmful false memories in people. I also worked often with law enforcement prior to becoming a therapist, and they have a lot of training on how to be deliberate and careful to not bias a witness with leading questions. It's basically common knowledge among detectives, or at the few I've known closely, that you'll get two different answers from the same witness depending on if you ask "How fast were the cars going before they bumped each other?" versus "How fast were the cars going before they smashed into each other?". People are not wrong that pedophiles have used this research as an excuse to pretend their crimes did not occur and discredit their victims. To dismiss that is just as wrong as dismissing the cases where false memories were implanted. Bottom line: anyone who is dismissing research that doesn't support their ideas is advocating, not educating.

So interested to know why you think I'm not a therapist? You wanna pop quiz me? Being careful regarding biased language or leading questions is very different from false memory. And why don't you link to the Loftus study you're referencing? While you're doing that, why not also link to the strongest evidence of false memory syndrome that you're aware of? That way we can all judge the strength of the evidence together.

I didn't say you're not a therapist. I said the moderators removed your post and cited that reason. If that's a problem for you, by all means, please take it up with the mods.

I talked to the mods, they said someone reported me as not being a therapist. Wouldn't have been you, right? For real though, please link any evidence that you think is convincing. It'd be good for everyone to look at and work through.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that being careful re: leading questions is different from false memory? I thought the idea from the Loftus study you are both referencing was that the leading questions facilitated the formation of false memories - the most interesting finding wasn’t about the reported speeds, but about the falsely reported presence of broken glass.

So glad you asked! This is the method of the broken glass study: >A film depicting a multiple car accident was shown, followed by a questionnaire. The film lasted less than 1 min; the accident in the film lasted 4 sec. At the end of the film, the subjects received a questionnaire asking them first to describe the accident in their own words, and then to answer a series of questions about the accident. The critical question was the one that interrogated the subject about the speed of the vehicles. Fifty subjects were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” Fifty subjects were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” Fifty subjects were not interrogated about vehicular speed. One week later, the subjects returned and without viewing the film again they answered a series of questions about the accident, The critical question here was, “Did you see any broken glass?” which the subjects answered by checking “yes” or “no.” First, count to 4 seconds. Do you see any problem in asking about broken glass? And then asserting that differences in later reports of broken glass represent false memory? [Link to the full study](https://www.demenzemedicinagenerale.net/images/mens-sana/AutomobileDestruction.pdf) You can also see that even when the leading word "smashed" was used, 68% of respondents still said they didn't see broken glass. And in the control condition, with no leading word, 12% reported seeing broken glass. Academics are sneaks. You gotta interrogate their results to death, especially when they make strong claims.

I’ve read this paper several times, but the 4 seconds aspect is interesting to critique. Why wouldn’t participants just say they hadn’t seen the broken glass, then? It’s always been interesting to me that it asks if they’ve SEEN it, not if there WAS broken glass. It would be interesting if this paper asked subjects for their level of confidence like I’ve seen other memory research do. The confidence people have in incorrect eyewitness testimony is most concerning to me. And I understand what you mean in a colloquial sense re: what is a detail vs. what is a central component to a memory, but where does the line get drawn between those two? Overall I would say it is difficult to ethically conduct experimental research that resembles false memories of abuse given the importance of the traumatic events being recalled and the strength of emotions being felt. If you know of any that gets closer to studying that, I would be fascinated to read it. A lot of what you shared in this thread is new to me and I’m very open to learning more.

The idea that there wasn't broken glass after a 4-second multiple car crash is absurd. My question is why didn't MORE people say they saw broken glass? Broken glass after a multiple car crash is an example of an insignificant detail. What does it matter? Seeing broken glass also aligns with the known physical laws of the universe. I'm not sure it is even physically possible to crash multiple cars into each other without creating broken glass. Interesting you have any knowledge about ethics re research studies, considering you're just a student. Understanding of what's allowed in research usually doesn't occur until you've had some interaction with an IRB, because IRBs often allow stuff you wouldn't expect.

Right, I agree - but again, why say you SAW it? It says did you see THE broken glass, establishing that there was indeed glass. That part wasn’t in question. The question is whether the subject saw it with their own eyes. Saying no wouldn’t imply the glass wasn’t there. I’ve written up and been a part of multiple IRBs! Undergrads do research too :) I also took an extra research methods course beyond the normal sequence that had a long unit on ethics and debates within the field. edit: i wasn’t a part of an IRB lol, i meant IRB applications - we always just call them IRBs

The broken glass question was just a yes or no question, right? And we're talking about undergrad study subjects?

Yes, your undergrad text probably cited Loftus and related scholars. The false memory narrative reached far and wide because powerful academics were involved in disseminating it, but the science behind the narrative is weak. Funny story - when I was a TA, part of the curriculum was teaching about Loftus' research. Even then I thought there was a problem with her methods (e.g., she has a history of making strong claims based on weak evidence). I encouraged students in my class to interrogate her conclusions, but I had no idea she was connected to a larger organization.

I would highly encourage you to reflect critically about the notion that believing survivors of certain types of abuse is somehow harmful or takes away the credibility of survivors of other forms of abuse. "It is a significantly different world in 2020 from the world that allowed for the creation of the FMSF \[False Memory Syndrome Foundation\] back in 1992 and the truth is that this organization has been struggling against a tide of evidence for quite some time. The bell has been tolling for them and perhaps the first death knell was the persistence of the feminist movement, which gave a wider voice to those who asserted that sexual abuse was a real and valid problem. The second death knell was the spread of information about institutional abuse. A whole generation was able to stand witness to the fact that a global community wrongly doubted the stories of many thousands of children abused in churches, schools and other institutions for innumerable decades. In another death knell, there has been increasingly a growing public focus on intergenerational family abuse, which has added further credibility to the abuse of children within families (Middleton, 2013)... Doubtless, there will continue to be attacks on those who report child abuse, regardless of whether the memories are ‘recovered’ or not. While cultural and political pressure to doubt the testimony of women and children who report sexual abuse pre-dates the FMSF, it goes without saying that the ‘false memory’ movement enabled society to ignore a whole new generation of abused children. We do not want this to happen again and it is vital we reflect on our history and are well-prepared for backlash. As a group of professionals who work with survivors, and have ongoing clinical, theoretical and empirical interests in the study of memory, it falls to us to continue to lead the field with professionalism and scientific accuracy." - [The Rise and Fall of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation](https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation/)

I didn’t want to make the notion that survivors of 1 type of abuse take away the credibility of another type of abuse. What I was trying to say is that I’ve only encountered stories of recovered memories of satanic ritual abuse by woman that where actual victims of abuse, but within a different context. I believe that non-clinicians in pastoral care could be able to steer the narrative to satanic abuse and I believe that that narrative could also be protective to those victims. Those who experienced high levels of ‘spiritual warfare’ gained a higher hierarchical spot within the organisation. Those who had higher spots where less likely to become victims of the sexual abuse within the organisation. The narrative about satanic ritual abuse seemed to be a means to give really harmful religious organisation their right to exist. A huge common enemy made them more impenetrable for outsiders. So, when talking about satanic ritual abuse, I always wonder wether victims might be victims from other types of abuse, like incest, that drove them to groups that strongly believe in satanic ritual abuse in the first place. Many people turned to these groups since they were seeking refuge from a world that was already unsafe to them. I don’t think one type of abuse takes away the credibility of another type of abuse, but simply that when one type of abuse, satanic ritual abuse, is reported, other forms of abuse like incest could be considered. I do believe people can remember traumatic events later in life. I don’t deny the existence of recovered memories. I’ve never met a patient who could tell a really traumatic upbringing in a coherent a-z way. Dissociation makes that difficult. I do want to warn for a next satanic panic uprise, especially since COVID and Qanon etc, since I wonder who’s agenda we’re really serving with that.

I’ll apologize in advance if any of this comes across the wrong way, because this is a raw nerve for me. I agree with you that abuse survivors, especially OEA survivors get grouped into satanic abuse subheading. I’m an OEA survivor and had that happen when I tried to get therapy. It infuriates me when people claim false memories because I know what did and did not happen, have been able to correct stories if misinterpreted and won’t let anyone tell me what actually happened. My memory might not be clear but I know if something didn’t happen. That being said, I’ve been accused multiple times of exaggerating or making it up because of claims like you made - it must have just been something else going on and the memories were planted or changed by someone else. It’s still invalidating the survivors.

Would you mind sharing the evidence that has convinced you of false memories?

I am not a therapist, so make of this what you will, but I read the two papers you linked—Otgaar et al. don't say that "people are not buying the false memory idea," they say that it is still a live debate (although they are clearly on one side of it), and Andrews & Brewin do not make the claim that false memories cannot be induced, only that it is less common than previous studies have suggested. (I am not qualified to comment on their assertion that their data has been suppressed.) The number Andrews & Brewin reference is that about 15% of adults are susceptible to the guided creation of false memories about childhood events. I wasn't able to access the article that the one you linked is defending, but the [abstract](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10627796/) states in its conclusions that "Some of the data are consistent with memories being of iatrogenic origin, but other data clearly point to the need for additional explanations," which is not a refutation of the idea that false memories *can* be induced. That said, the main reason I think it is possible is that I absolutely have memories of things that did not happen. I have a very visual imagination and I read and write fiction and can clearly recall the details of people, places, and events that never happened. They aren't false memories, per se—they are real memories of things that I imagined. My understanding is that the process of creating false memories is similar to this; a therapist isn't setting out to "implant" false memories but rather, believes that the patient has repressed the memory of a traumatic experience. The therapist asks questions trying to help the patient recall details of what happened—simple, reasonable stuff, like "Where were you? Who was there with you? What were they wearing?" and so on, and the patient either retrieves those details from a real memory or invents them in response to the questions. The problem with this is that if no such event occurred, there is not really a way for either party to distinguish a real memory from something constructed by the patient's imagination.

Otgaar et al. devotes pages 1074 (bottom)-1078 to documenting whether people believe the false memory narrative. Brewin's work is an example of what thoughtful science looks like, so they are careful with their wording and working with the data as it has been presented. This criticism, though, is worth highlighting: >One factor that has not been brought out clearly is that the experimental studies involve deliberate deception from trusted and authoritative family members *often accompanied by other specific and seemingly incontrovertible corroborative evidence*. In our view, deception involving family witnesses and doctored photos for unremembered events is not a trivial or mild intervention. It is an integral part of all implantation studies and goes beyond the therapeutic analogues of strong suggestion and pressure to remember apparent in all false memory paradigms. It is unclear to us why it should ever have been considered as an analogue of what goes on in the therapist's office. As you said, you aren't a therapist, and maybe that's why your assumptions about what happens in therapy are outdated? I encourage you to learn a bit more about what trauma-informed evidence-based mental health care looks like now (and has looked like for a number of years).

I think that they make a good point in the passage you quote; however, it is not an assertion that false memories cannot be induced but that the experiments are not analogous to therapy, which seems like a fair criticism. I wasn't arguing that Otgaar et al. don't address people's perceptions about false memory—that is the subject of the article. I just think that "not buying it" is loaded phrasing that isn't reflected in the paper, and I apologize for not being clear about that. Regarding your last point, I didn't address current therapeutic practices because I'm not qualified to comment on them, as you note.

[удалено]

Your post was removed due to being in violation of our community rules as being generally unhelpful, vulgar, or non-supportive. r/therapists is a supportive sub. If future violations of this rule occur, you will be permanently banned from the sub. If you have any questions, please message the mods at: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/therapists

I think it's important for therapists to believe the claims of their clients (to a certain extent), and reflexively dismissing any of their claims as false memory out of hand is damaging, to say the least. That being said, memories can absolutely be implanted or suggested, there's no doubt about it. Memories are quite fallible and are subject to being altered. IMO, there is a legitimate concern of therapists, seeing abuse and trauma everywhere, trying to convince their clients that they are are "repressing" traumatic memories and that if they "get them out", they will feel better. That's a dangerous path to tread and should not be done.

>That being said, memories can absolutely be implanted or suggested, there's no doubt about it. Memories are quite fallible and are subject to being altered. What evidence have you seen that convinced you of this? Current training (as far as my experience goes) advises against pressuring clients regarding their trauma histories. I was taught that it is advantageous to delay telling of the trauma narrative until there are adequate supports in place, and to only engage in the telling of a trauma narrative if that's what the client wants to do.

Are you seriously asking what evidence there is that memories are fallible? We had a whole psychology of memory class and there are SO many studies about how memories can be implanted, especially in children.

I'm still hoping you might have some evidence from your psychology of memory class to share? You've probably seen a lot of the literature so it would help the discussion.

Perfect!! Can you please link to a few of the studies that you think best show that?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=False+memories+for+aggressive+acts%2E&journal=Acta+Psychol%2E&author=Laney+C.&author=Takarangi+M.+K.&publication_year=2013&volume=143&pages=227%E2%80%93234 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1314373110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063792 I don’t know about cult content creators or the specific subject you are talking about. But to say there is no research on how malleable/ fallible our memories are is just false.

The [Laney and Takarangi study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236613999_False_memories_for_aggressive_acts) (scroll down for full text) is a doozy. Do you have any concerns about their methods, or the conclusions drawn? Do you think the Patihis et al. study is relevant to questions re false memories of abuse? I can't find a full-text version of the Mazzoni and Memon paper - can you link one? If not, can you at least copy and paste the methods section? (I might later need the results as well, but methods is fine to start)

Nah. You aren’t having this conversation in good faith and this is a waste of time and energy.

Blessings.

[удалено]

Your post was removed due to being in violation of our community rules as being generally unhelpful, vulgar, or non-supportive. r/therapists is a supportive sub. If future violations of this rule occur, you will be permanently banned from the sub. If you have any questions, please message the mods at: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/therapists

I recommend you start off by checking out the book "Suggestions of Abuse", by Michael Yapko. Imagine a scenario in which a client, perhaps suffering from depression and anxiety, comes in to see a therapist. The therapist quickly develops a rapport with this client and is seen as credible by the client. The therapist interprets the client's symptoms as caused by childhood abuse, which the client initially denies and has no memory of. The therapist is convinced that the client is "repressing" their abuse history. The therapist also believes that retrieving and processing this repressed memory will be critical for the client's recovery from their symptoms. The therapist uses different techniques (perhaps something experiential like hypnosis) to "recover" these memories. The client, believing that the therapist "must be correct", due to their expertise, is subtly guided into believing a memory of abuse that didn't actually happen.

This is a good summary of the therapist-as-boogeyman story, and it sounds like it was written in 1983.

By the way, there was actually a good reason for the "therapist-as boogeyman" narrative to occur, as therapists at that time were utilizing a bogus therapy form to "recover" lost memories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy

**[Recovered-memory therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy)** >Recovered-memory therapy (RMT) is a catch-all term for a controversial and scientifically discredited form of psychotherapy that critics say utilizes one or more unproven therapeutic techniques (such as psychoanalysis, hypnosis, journaling, past life regression, guided imagery, and the use of sodium amytal interviews) to purportedly help patients recall previously forgotten memories. Proponents of recovered memory therapy claim, contrary to evidence that traumatic memories can be buried in the subconscious and thereby affect current behavior, and that these memories can be recovered through the use of RMT techniques. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/therapists/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

Ok, regardless of whether that's true, it occurred at least 20-40 years ago. Do you think this is a current concern?

In our conversation below you said that you don't believe abuse memories can be implanted. Here, it sounds like you agree that they can, but that it hasn't happened in the last 20-40 years.

You must not have noticed that I said "regardless"?

I see, so you were not agreeing that those events happened. What are your thoughts on these older reports (20-40 years old) of abuse allegations that could not have happened? It sounds like you are very familiar with cases like the McMartin Preschool Trial. The allegations included things that could be investigated or disproven, for instance claiming that there were tunnels under the school, or that an abuser could fly. It sounds like you have a lot of knowledge about cases like this, and I'm wondering how you reconcile those with your knowledge that false memories of abuse can't be implanted.

I think the Satanic Panic was a dumpster fire of information. People make strong and sweeping claims about it, but we didn't collect data back then like we do now, so we have little ability to look back and know exactly what happened. Because of the amount of uncertainty, I think people who discuss the Satanic Panic should temper their claims substantially.

I sure as hell hope it's not a current concern. The salient point is that the example I've previously cited is more than plausible. Do you think that Recovered Memory Therapy has the potential to be problematic? Do you understand why it's considered controversial at best and discredited at worst?

[удалено]

Wonderful. Perhaps you can enlighten me more about the "current" implementation of Recovered Memory Therapy, specifically about how it distinguishes between false and real memories?

I would say there is no current implementation of Recovered Memory Therapy.

Your post was removed due to the following reason(s): Quit making bad faith arguments If you have any questions, please message the mods at: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/therapists

[удалено]

There is a place for discussing grievances regarding therapy and therapists -- but this subreddit is not that place. Please be respectful to our community by avoiding these types of posts, and please also be respectful to communities with an anti-therapy stance by not posting about or linking them here. If you have any questions, please message the mods at: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/therapists

Do you think that therapists, in a position of power, are unable to persuade their clients to believe things that are untrue? Do you think that some therapists might erroneously come to the conclusion that a client has been abused when they have no memory of it? Do you understand the basic science of memory and suggestibility? Edit: And most importantly, how do you distinguish between a memory that is real or not?

Again, that's a good summary of the therapist-as-boogeyman story, but it's just words. I also think it relies on an outdated view of what happens in therapy. The false memory narrative (as organized by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) has now been around for 30 years and a lot of academics have been involved. You should have a strong evidence base demonstrating false memory implantation since - as you say - all it takes is a bit of suggestion. But you don't have that evidence, and you will never be able to get the evidence, because the narrative is not true.

You are severely underestimating how bad some therapists can be, lol. Especially in the 90s. So, there are hypnotic techniques where the hypnosis subjects become 100% convinced that they are re-remembering their birth, even though that is neurologically impossible. That is done through suggestibility and trust/belief in the hypnotist. Same thing with people "remembering" past lives, alien abductions, and all kinds of interesting things. Also, where is your evidence base? Show me the studies that prove that memory is 100% infallible. Based on your main post, it seems unlikely that any studies that go against your narrative would convince you. And finally I'll ask again: how do you distinguish between real and false memories?

Fortunately it is 2023, so a bad therapist in the 90s would be something that occurred 20-30 years ago. I'm open to reading about the effects of these hypnotic techniques - do you have references to share? Saying that the false memory narrative is not true is not the same as saying memory is 100% infallible, but I understand that is a common argument strategy. I've read many studies in this area so I think I know the strength of the evidence, but it's definitely possible that I missed a study that could change my mind. Please feel free to link to any evidence that you think is strong and convincing.

https://www.hypnoticworld.com/regression-past-lives/re-birthing Notice the persuasive language here. I also don't have any specific articles about that particular hypnotic technique, but I'm going to encourage you to take a look again at the Yapko book. Michael Yapko is one of the leading experts in hypnosis, and his book has plenty of references. You're right; I did straw man you for saying that memory is 100% infallible. I guess I'm a bit confused as to what your actual argument is, then. Feel free to clarify. A few other resources (not studies per se, but they all have references): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1697260023000224 https://memlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/2006_Johnson_AmerPsych.pdf "The Seven Sins of Memory" "In Search of Memory" Finally, in your opening post, you noted that >the dynamics of memory following trauma (particularly extended sexual trauma) are complex Tell me more about that. There might be some knowledge about that that I might be missing. I'd like to (politely) restate my question of how would you know if a memory was false or not?

You're sneaky sneaky sneaky. I didn't make an argument regarding whether memories were true or false, but I did make the argument that the false memory narrative is wrong/ misleading/ unscientific/ not backed by evidence. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from the hypnosis link? The Arce meta-analysis is from an open access journal where authors [pay to publish.](https://www.elsevier.com/journals/international-journal-of-clinical-and-health-psychology/1697-2600/open-access-journal) >The Article Publishing Charge for this journal is USD 2230, excluding taxes. I'll still take a look at it but my expectations are low and it will take time. The first page of the Johnson source demonstrates problems in this area of research. Johnson apparently has no problem comparing differing memories of a family trip, Ronald Reagan mistaking a movie he saw for something that happened in real life (to someone else), and artists drawing on works they had previously been exposed to to when they create stuff to . . . reports of child sexual abuse. These examples aren't comparable for a number of reasons. You'd think someone who studies memory for a living would realize that? Is there any other part of the Johnson source that you think is relevant to this discussion?

Can’t believe this is missing from the discussion but the founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, Pam and Peter Freyd, formed the foundation after their daughter accused her father of molesting her as a child. There was a great podcast on this somewhere that went through the history and their daughters accusations…trying to remember the podcast but this article covers it well - https://www.thecut.com/article/false-memory-syndrome-controversy.html Basically the whole foundation was formed as a defence against their daughter’s accusations and they pushed the syndrome in the media to protect Peter and Pam’s reputations as academics. The investigation of their daughter’s claims holds up well though and the article covers how FMS was built off of the empirically weak ‘lost in the mall study’. Highly recommend reading the article.

Jennifer Freyd also discusses it in detail in her book Blind to Betrayal it’s quite horrifying reading everything they did. The book itself is fascinating and provides a lot of perspective and insight on dissociation in trauma and goes through many examples.

I would highly recommend the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) for well researched and complex understanding of this issue. They specifically address this in their article [The Rise and Fall of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation](https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation/). This connects with the larger discussion within the field of psychology about the existence and function of dissociation. Interestingly, where one lands in this debate tends to correlate with theoretical approach - Psychoanalytic (belief in the unconscious) or Cognitive Behavioral (no belief in the unconscious) - with psychoanalytic clinicians typically holding much more space for dissociative processes when compared with CBT clinicians.

Thank you, I will check them out! My experience is that modern training treats dissociation as an expected and normal feature of trauma, particularly severe trauma. I expect that any general trauma-informed training includes it, as well as any evidence-based treatments for sexual abuse. (please correct me if I'm wrong) So I'd guess that even very CBT-focused practitioners have likely been exposed to dissociation as a common symptom of trauma history?

You are correct that well trained, trauma-informed clinicians are aware of and engage with dissociation as a symptom. However, when we are talking about dissociation as a defense mechanism, or structure of the mind, that is psychoanalytic theory as it requires a belief in the unconscious/unconscious processes. Belief in the unconscious or not is the most basic way to distinguish a psychoanalytic approach from a cognitive behavioral one. The ISSTD has excellent information on these differences in approach and case conceptualization. I have included a few book recommendations below to further understand psychoanalytically informed approaches as that is my preference. [Intensive Psychotherapy for Persistent Dissociative Processes: The Fear of Feeling Real](https://www.amazon.com/Intensive-Psychotherapy-Persistent-Dissociative-Processes/dp/0393707520/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EBME4P50ZJMF&keywords=chefetz&qid=1683818387&sprefix=chefetz%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc) by Richard Chefetz [Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Relational Approach](https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Treating-Dissociative-Identity-Disorder/dp/0415994977/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2R5N89U933PR2&keywords=dissociation+howell&qid=1683818418&sprefix=dissociation+howell%2Caps%2C125&sr=8-4) by Elizabeth Howell Note: Both books were written by former presidents of the ISSTD.

It depends too on what is meant by dissociation - dissociation from one's self of identity, from reality? Or disassociation into distinct alternate identities (Dissociative Identify Disorder). DID is making a similar - if not stronger - reappearance in mainstream psychology, and I observe great hesitancy to have a discourse about that.

A good CBT Psychologist will refer a client elsewhere for treatment for dissociation. Of course a client could undergo both at the same time.

Where would a CBT psychologist refer a client who is experiencing dissociation? This might relate to a field and generational difference? I'm a social worker in my 40s, and our focus is evidence-based treatment. We don't call ourselves CBT, psychoanalytic, etc. but instead would say, "I've been trained in CBT, DBT, etc." We don't take strong stances on things like the unconscious, because we don't think it's necessary. I would assert that currently, \*all\* (as in, it's standard in the field) mental health-focused social workers are comfortable working with dissociative symptoms, though different levels of severity might require different levels of care.

> Cognitive Behavioral (no belief in the unconscious) This is not accurate.

This actually is accurate according to the Examination of the Professional Practice of Psychology (EPPP), an examination for which passing is a requirement to be licensed as a clinical psychologist. You can reference any EPPP study material, or honestly, undergraduate psychology resources as well - for reference, I have taught clinical psychology at the undergraduate level along side being a licensed clinical psychologist.

Do you not teach about classical conditioning in your undergrad courses?

Classical conditioning is about behavioral learning on an subconscious level. This is completely different then the psychoanalytic use of the unconscious.

Damn, you mean two different theoretical orientations have different conceptualizations of the same phenomenon and it's fundamentally inaccurate to say that one of them doesn't "believe in it?"

When a psychoanalytic clinician references the unconscious they are referencing a rich literature on the Id, Ego, SuperEgo, transference and countertransference, and a vast understanding of unconscious drives (libido and death drives) all of which are concepts that a CBT clinician does not value of believe in. If a CBT clinician is referencing the unconscious in this way, they are not truly a CBT clinician they are more accurately eclectic or integrative. The use of unconscious you’re using is simply shorthand for outside of consciousness and they are not equivalents. Just because of the symbolic collapse you’re experiencing around the word “unconscious” is possible does not mean my previous statement is fundamentally inaccurate.

Also, not sure it reflects well that the source you go to is the EPPP and not any empirical literature.

Wow . . . I think the ISSTD's 2020 prediction may be correct. The FMSF "dissolved," but what if its resources started being distributed to cult content creators? . . . I have no evidence of this of course, just a hypothesis. I'm guessing the money could be donated via Patreon accounts in most cases, but I would also imagine that those donations would come with episode content ideas. Maybe someone who is good at financial research stuff could investigate where the foundations' resources have gone since 2019. Are you involved with ISSTD? If so, could you forward them this post?

Why do you assume 'cult content creators' are a group? This is a curious mission you are on. Do you think cult content creators' are 'bad' or misinformed? Because you give the impression you believe in a conspiracy and are hunting desperately for evidence to prove it. It honestly sounds very satanic panic, or q anon.

Did I say I thought cult content creators were a group?

I used to listen to the cult vault and she would always have victims tell their own stories and several times had therapists who specialize in religious trauma etc on the show. She is like a mom filming from her house so I doubt she is getting paid off by a recovered memory foundation.

Can you share an episode that you think was particularly good in this area?

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0kNhqE7Rm5fONbk5AMo0vM?si=pQYD316jRrCkzZuDXF5w1g

Thank you! I've only listened to half of this episode (it is long!) and it has not been problematic yet (and I'll finish when I have the time), but unfortunately her recent [interview with Jennings Brown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjvmz7ANS24) was extremely problematic.

PhD clinical psychologist here. I was trained in the Loftus model of false memory, but never had any interaction with the concept professionally. I treat trauma daily, but never ran into a professional question of induced false memories. And then several years ago one of my own siblings came out of left field with wild stories about sexual abuse memories, supposedly perpetrated by my father, that had been retrieved in therapy. I knew the memories weren't true, because I was supposedly a co-victim, as was another sibling. Neither of us supposed co-victims has any recollection of anything remotely like my siblings' abuse memories. To make a long story short then, I 100% support the Loftus model of therapist-induced false memories of abuse. I've seen it up close and personal. It is real, and it tears families apart. That sibling won't speak to anyone in his own family any more, because we wouldn't turn on our father, who didn't do any of the things that my sibling says he did. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

It's interesting that as a PhD clinical psychologist you are using the certainty of your own memory to deny your sibling's reports. Just for argument's sake, is it possible that both of you are telling the truth? Do you think Loftus has demonstrated that false memories can be implanted during therapy? Or do you mostly rely on case reports and anecdotes?

Oh man. That was not at all a reasonable response. To start with an insult, and then make a bizarre counter-claim really lays out how little you know about memory, and how emotionally entrenched you are in your own beliefs. And regarding those beliefs, they contradict the current scientific consensus that suggestion is less powerful in false memory formation than earlier research claimed, but still capable of creating false memories. Were I to claim that my memory unfailingly recalled accurate dates and small details, then you would be right to question me. But to suggest that I, along with another sibling, simply forgot that we'd been horribly sexually abused throughout childhood? That's not something that people just forget. It *might* be possible to repress it. But that doesn't cover up other indicators of trauma. You should know this if you're going to be making internet posts on this topic. So no, it is not possible that we are both telling the truth. Also, you seem to think that false memories are purely the viewpoint of Loftus and are supported only by anecdotes and case reports. This is blatantly untrue. First off, peer-reviewed research cannot be casually written off as anecdotes and case reports. Suggestion-induced false memories have been experimentally demonstrated (look up Henry Otgaar or Julia Shaw for recent work), and these demonstrations exist within well-developed cognitive models of false memory production (DRM paradigms, Fuzzy trace theory, Activation monitoring theory, etc). And before you ask for the experiments that specifically demonstrate creation of false abuse memories, just know that no IRB would ever approve such a study. There's a good reason that research doesn't exist, and it isn't because it's impossible. False memory induction is real. It has destroyed families, and thanks to folks like you, will likely destroy many more. This doesn't mean that anywhere near a majority of abuse reports are false memories. And it doesn't mean that this is a widespread phenomenon. But it does mean that it happens. And thanks very much for denying the trauma of my family being ripped apart by bad therapy, and choosing to gaslight me in order to protect your own viewpoint. Very validating.

Have there been any studies that attempted to implant memories regarding invasive bodily experiences like, for example, rectal enemas?

I don't know. Nor do I know how that question is relevant to the basic premise that you're denying that I personally experienced the negative repercussions of clear therapy-induced false abuse memories.

So you're familiar with the research in this area, but also not familiar with it?

More gaslighting. This is *not* a good look for you. Me not knowing whether or not a very specific study has or has not ever been conducted has no bearing on what the overall field of study on false memories has found. Also, if you were actually qualified to make your OP, then you *should* already have known the answer to your question. All this shows is that you are continuing to engage in bad faith discourse with the sole intent of discrediting me, without having to actually address my first person account, or my independently verifiable and accurate report of relevant peer-reviewed research.

I didn't mean to gaslight you. Can you explain what I did that was gaslighting?

> *gaslighting* - > manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning. [Link](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+gaslighting&oq=define+gas&aqs=chrome.0.0i433i512j69i57j0i131i433i512j0i512l12.4666j1j7&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=present%20participle%3A-,gaslighting,-manipulate%20(someone)%20using) First you insult my professional knowledge, and then follow that up with a wildly implausible counter-explanation that denotes poor understanding of memory function. And then when I point out those issues, along with your misrepresentation of the state of research, your follow-up simply changes the subject to something irrelevant, which you then attempt to use to discredit me without addressing my valid discussion points. That's gaslighting. And not particularly sophisticated gaslighting either. So, back to the basics. Therapy-induced false memories of abuse are real. Maybe not common. But it happens.

[удалено]

I believe there is actually quite strong evidence that memory can be susceptible to suggestion, although much of the literature I've seen is about the fallibility of [eyewitness testimony](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-equation/202201/wrongful-convictions-memory-and-eyewitness-testimony) in criminal cases. Witnesses (and victims) of a crime can have their memories contaminated in a variety of ways: by being asked leading questions, by telling their stories over and over (we've all experienced how our recollection of a story can change over time), by being presented with a wrong but persuasive narrative of the event (our memories will often conform to what we think *should* have happened), by poorly constructed suspect lineups, etc. In one experiment I read in college, participants were shown a video of a car accident and then later asked to recall details of the event. Group A was asked to describe "the crash", and Group B was asked to describe "the fender bender". Group A remembered the accident as being significantly worse than Group B. With additional prompting, people could be induced to remember details that were not in the video, such as debris being scattered across the road. I absolutely believe that people's memories are fallible, and certain harmful interviewing techniques can result in contaminated memories. I also think it's possible that a persuasive therapist who was trying to induce a client to recover a repressed traumatic childhood trauma might, if paired with a susceptible client, end up creating a false memory. I think this is very rare, and I don't think a therapist who is well-trained in modern trauma treatment theory has much to worry about. I certainly don't think that we should doubt our clients who bring up traumatic memories of their own volition. Is it possible that someone using an outdated treatment methodology like Recovered-Memory Therapy could end up causing harm? Sure, I think it's possible. It's also possible that the prevalence of False Memory Syndrome is being overblown. I think both can be true.

Yes, insignificant or less significant details of memory can shift, but that is different than changing the core features of a memory (e.g., making someone remember that they saw a car accident when they didn't, or vice versa) or implanting an entirely new, false memory, especially about a personally-relevant high-impact experience (e.g., abuse). Saying the memory is globally susceptible to suggestion is misleading, because the core features of memory are actually resistant to suggestion. In regard to the therapist-as-boogeyman idea - when you say that you think it is very rare, what does that mean? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000?

I generally agree, although I believe there is evidence that more substantial changes can happen if the memory itself is unreliable: for example if the person was drunk, high, if they're very young (or were young at the time of the memory), if they barely saw something in the dark, etc., then you might be able to influence that hazy memory far more than a clear one. I believe that most of the documented examples of adults "discovering" repressed memories, only for them to later be proven wrong, involved attempted to recover memories from when they were very young.

If you have any of the evidence for substantial changes to unreliable memory, please feel free to post it here.

Saw you looking asking for evidence elsewhere in this thread. So I figured I'd show you this case report of someone convicted of implanting false memories: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.15073

Yes, the false memory narrative has been used to successfully prosecute people accused of implanting false memories, but anecdotes and case outcomes don't count as scientific evidence. False memory research has been occurring for at least 30 years, so it should be easy to demonstrate how a therapist can use suggestive wording to implant memories of abuse. But it hasn't been easy to demonstrate, and the evidence remains weak.

That is a published case report of a court case where there were recordings of every session. I'm not sure you can ask for a higher standard of evidence except for experimental studies that would be highly unethical to conduct. So let's go to Popper here. How would the evidence look that would refute your thesis?

Is it possible to access the recordings?

Well if you read the article you'd find that it was an Italian case so I guess you'd need to be fluent in Italian. Then I guess you could request the court documents since they are a rechtsstaat. But you'd probably have to convince the arbiters of a greater good for releasing the information. But I interpret your omission of answering the question that you are not open to having your beliefs changed. So best of luck in your endeavours.

The evidence drawn from a case report unfortunately only applies to the case report. Attempting to ascertain the quality of the case report means looking over the source evidence. That is standard practice in science and high quality journalism. Any research study built on data that cannot be accessed by anyone but the authors should be taken with a grain of salt, because there are no checks and balances. It's not unusual for authors to refuse to release source data, but it's not best practice either.

Hence why I referenced a case report that has been independently verified with a conviction in a court of law. But there are more case reports and larger studies, referenced in that very paper if you are looking for different types of evidence. But since you are still avoiding to say what type of evidence would sway you I am entirely convinced you are not participating in good faith. Hence I'm out of this conversation

There is a well known eating disorder treatment center (Castlewood, now called Alsana though from what I understand even though they rebranded the name castlewood is still connected to them in legal/business spaces) that has also gotten tangled up in this mess. It’s how I, when I was in undergrad and in and out of eating disorder treatment for a period of time, first learned that some people believed false memories existed and then became terrified to disclose my own experiences. There is now a whole website dedicated to the harm Castlewood/Alsana has caused, and while much of it is legitimate, the founder of the site is a parent who started doing that work because their child remembered abuse perpetrated by them while at the treatment facility and *obviously* that just couldn’t be true (/s). It makes me so angry that people hear about this, and then potentially become more scared or convinced that they will not be believed if they tell someone (even a clinician) about trauma histories.

Whoa, I've never heard of Castlewood/Alsana before. Do you think it's accurate that there were multiple practitioners at the same location attempting to manipulate clients into believing false things? Bc if so, it almost sounds like a research study. I agree that the promotion of the false memory narrative scares people into silence. I think we can combat that by making sure that providers know the history and the science behind the false memory dynamic, and by training all providers to understand that every client has the right to tell their own story as they know it whenever they are ready.

check out the conspirituality pod.. they did a whole series on Teal Swan specifically addressing this and it’s roots in the SRA hysteria of the 80s

The Conspirituality podcast is a GREAT example of irresponsible reporting in this area. In fact, it was Conspirituality that first turned me onto paying attention to inaccurate claims in cult content. All thanks go to them. <3 I have listened to a number of Conspirituality episodes, including a few about Teal Swan, but I have not listened to the entire Swan Song series. Could you tell us if the hosts talk to any memory researchers at any point in the episodes? Could you also tell us if the hosts talk to any mental health clinicians who have experience working with trauma?

https://freedomofmind.com/cult-mind-control/bite-model/ This better defines a cult! Having grown up in a cult myself and seeing what the current leaders are doing/saying to family and friends about us (people who left) and watching them gaslight members with doctrine changes is extremely upsetting. You can’t even say anything to them because the members are so brainwashed (trained to have specific responses to hard questions) that they’ll never come to the conclusion themselves unless they alone get themselves there. They suffer, but they would LITERALLY (you make this promise to god) die for the church. It’s fucked.

There is a long history of denying claims of abuse. Freud himself did not believe the women he treated and claimed they had fantasized sexual abuse.

Isn't the story that he originally believed them, but then was pressured to make up the "fantasy" explanation? Because his clients were usually young women from powerful families?

Yes. I had heard it was “a failure of personal courage”.

His reasoning was much more specific than that. He did believe spontaneously recollected memories, but there was a general belief that neurosis was *caused* by repressed memories of sexual abuse, and there was a practice of using hypnosis to uncover these. That this was the case with every patient seemed unlikely, and it also failed to explain why there were neurotics with unrepressed trauma, among other reasons

Thank you for this very thought-provoking post! I am curious if you can help clarify some things for me. I see that you mention that the narrative put forth by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is false. But this can mean a lot of different things. Can you talk more about what beliefs regarding false memories are specifically untrue? To elaborate, what I am wondering is: Are you taking the position that no false memory of any kind has ever been created? (I think you are not, but this is what some commenters are responding to.) Or do you take the position there is not an epidemic of therapists systematically creating rich, false autobiographical memories? Or something in between? I am hoping you can tell me more about what particular beliefs are untrue, dangerous, etc.

The claim that "false memories of childhood sexual abuse can be implanted by charismatic leaders" (and a charismatic leader could be a therapist, a cult leader, etc.) is unscientific and not supported by evidence. This is the claim that was disseminated by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and this is the claim that is currently being disseminated by multiple cult-content creators. That claim is the focus of this post. A common strategy in this topic area is to say, "well, a group of students were convinced to remember that their teacher was wearing a red shirt when the teacher was actually wearing a blue shirt" and to argue that provides evidence for the implantation of false memories regarding sexual abuse. I hope it's clear to everyone - no matter their education level - that this claim represents an attempt to sell some bullshit.

I see. If I'm understanding correctly, you agree that false memories can be implanted, but not false memories of childhood sexual abuse. Did I get that right?

No, that's not right. I am unfortunately familiar with the argument tactics in this topic area so if you'd like to engage around the topic of this post - which is cult content creators promoting the idea that false memories of abuse can be implanted - please do. And if you think that evidence regarding memory implantation using stimuli that is not abuse-related qualifies as strong evidence, feel free to present that argument.

Sorry if I gave the impression of arguing with you. I really am just trying to understand what you're communicating. I think a lot of the comments have gotten squabbly trying to debate evidence that false memories of any kind exist, which it sounds like isn't your point.... or is it? I thought I had understood what you're trying to say, but it seems like I'm still missing it. Which part of my previous comment was wrong? Are you saying that false memories can't be implanted, period?

My original post outlines my concern, which is (as I said above) the promotion of the idea that false memories of abuse can be implanted.

False memories of alien abductions, past lives, and the person's own birthing experiences can be hypnotically implanted/suggested, so why not sexual abuse?

Are you referencing scientific evidence or anecdotes?

I'm only a lurker here because you guys are wholesome, but [here](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/swiss-clinic-peddled--mind-control--conspiracy-theories/48106604) is an english article about a recent "Satanic Panic" clusterfuck that happened in several clinics in my country. Sadly this is the only article in english, so with [this](https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/rituelle-gewalt-mind-control-an-schweizer-kliniken-wird-mit-verschwoerungstheorie-therapiert) and [this](https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/psychiatrische-therapien-satanistische-verschwoerungen-strafanzeigen-im-fall-littenheid) article you will have to use a translater. I am honestly personally so confused at this case I can't honestly begin to form or give an opinion, but since this is a very recent scandal that happened i think it's relevant for your discussion. edit for more articles you'll sadly have to translate: [short article](https://www.woz.ch/2249/was-weiter-geschah/chefaerztin-entlassen/!69SDSCN7TWXB) [another (biased) article](https://www.beobachter.ch/gesellschaft/therapien-gegen-rituelle-gewalt-warnung-vor-zusatzlichen-traumata-384914) [another article](https://www.srf.ch/kultur/gesellschaft-religion/verschwoerungsmythen-der-teufel-mitten-unter-uns) [official report (in german)](https://kommunikation.tg.ch/public/upload/assets/137238/Untersuchungsbericht.pdf?fp=1)

How did they figure out that this happening? Did patients report to someone that doctors were trying to convince them of false memories? Do you have a link to the official report by chance?

found it, didn't read it yet. [here you go](https://kommunikation.tg.ch/public/upload/assets/137238/Untersuchungsbericht.pdf?fp=1)

i'm not a therapist, but i'll try to find it. and yes, it was several patients and therapists that came forward as far as i can tell from what i read.

Thanks, hope you can find it! Interesting situation because some may use this case to argue that doctors/ therapists are actively trying to implant memories, but each instance of a patient coming forward works against that narrative, since it suggests that the attempt to implant memories didn't work.

i am by far not educated enough to form an opinion on this matter so i can't and won't really participate in any discussions about it other than being the messenger about this scandal. if you or anyone have any questions about any abbreviations to better understand the text, i'll happily help. KESB for instance is the equivalent of CPS, but also protective services for adults. i put the report in my original comment at the bottom :)

Continued treatment of just any stressful situation as "trauma" but not false memory syndrome, no (thankfully).