I went to http://www.psych.org/dsmv.asp to try to find if there was already discussion about adding such a classification to the manual, but my search attempt just produced "Server Error in '/' Application." so I can't find out right now.
If 2003 was the first attempt at naming a new category of human behavior, then I'm not surprised that there is no peer-reviewed study completed yet. I hope that several such studies will be done in the future. I expect that "confirmation by anecdotal evidence" (my own life story) will contribute to the sense of urgency for producing such studies.
Self-interest is a good reason to be skeptical of anyone's claims. People can help protect themselves from snake oil salesmen by getting a second opinion elsewhere. Lack of documentation, however, is no logical disproof. By the same argument, there was a time when aspirin was an absurd impossibility because there was no supporting studies, just a bunch of "savages" making tea by boiling willow tree bark in water. Anecdotal stories are a sufficient reason to be curious. That's why I provided such detail on my own life story. I reached my conclusion about the reality of Cassandra Phenomenon back in 1997. Maxine Aston is slow to join me. My own story does not stand alone. Over the years since my diagnosis, I have encountered similar threads of conversation from wives who stated how shell shocked they felt, considering themselves emotionally battered even though it was never intentional. They got the same dismissive reaction in those threads that "Cassandra Phenomenon" does now. (Making the name an even more accurate choice of terminology, of course.)
It's shrill to dismiss it because it claims even before hard data is produced that there can be no such hard data that supports the view, while simultaneously making ad hominem attacks on the person instead of the claim. It is entirely possible that Maxine Aston is an unethical "ambulance chaser" taking advantage of despairing divorcees... and yet these divorcees really are damaged by a process unlike those encountered in other relationships.
I support the terminology because it matches precisely with my own life experience. I have no stake in seeing the terminology used. Quite the opposite, I gave up a lot because of my belief in its accuracy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Let's call a spade a spade.
Date: 2009-Jun-29, Monday 12:35 pm (UTC)If 2003 was the first attempt at naming a new category of human behavior, then I'm not surprised that there is no peer-reviewed study completed yet. I hope that several such studies will be done in the future. I expect that "confirmation by anecdotal evidence" (my own life story) will contribute to the sense of urgency for producing such studies.
Self-interest is a good reason to be skeptical of anyone's claims. People can help protect themselves from snake oil salesmen by getting a second opinion elsewhere. Lack of documentation, however, is no logical disproof. By the same argument, there was a time when aspirin was an absurd impossibility because there was no supporting studies, just a bunch of "savages" making tea by boiling willow tree bark in water. Anecdotal stories are a sufficient reason to be curious. That's why I provided such detail on my own life story. I reached my conclusion about the reality of Cassandra Phenomenon back in 1997. Maxine Aston is slow to join me. My own story does not stand alone. Over the years since my diagnosis, I have encountered similar threads of conversation from wives who stated how shell shocked they felt, considering themselves emotionally battered even though it was never intentional. They got the same dismissive reaction in those threads that "Cassandra Phenomenon" does now. (Making the name an even more accurate choice of terminology, of course.)
It's shrill to dismiss it because it claims even before hard data is produced that there can be no such hard data that supports the view, while simultaneously making ad hominem attacks on the person instead of the claim. It is entirely possible that Maxine Aston is an unethical "ambulance chaser" taking advantage of despairing divorcees... and yet these divorcees really are damaged by a process unlike those encountered in other relationships.
I support the terminology because it matches precisely with my own life experience. I have no stake in seeing the terminology used. Quite the opposite, I gave up a lot because of my belief in its accuracy.