ABSTRACT

Various authors have argued that dissociative amnesia is a synonym for repressed memories, recovered memories are almost always false memories, and dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder are not valid disorders. These authors commit numerous errors of logic and scholarship; they misunderstand Freud’s thinking about childhood sexual abuse, dissociation and repression and blame both Freudian repression theory and Freudian therapists for an epidemic of false memories. In fact, however, Freudian repression theory is based on the assumption that the childhood sexual abuse never happened. Extreme skeptics about dissociative amnesia do not understand they are actually in agreement with Freudian repression theory. These errors and other failures of logic and scholarship are analyzed and critiqued in the present paper.

摘要

许多作者认为，分离性失忆症是压抑记忆的同义词，恢复的记忆几乎总是虚假记忆，分离性遗忘症和分离性身份障碍不是有效的障碍。这些作者犯了许多逻辑和学术错误；他们误解了弗洛伊德关于童年性虐待、分离和压抑的想法，并指责弗洛伊德的压抑理论和弗洛伊德的治疗师造成了虚假记忆的流行。然而，事实上，弗洛伊德的压抑理论是基于童年性虐待从未发生过的假设。对分离性健忘症的极端怀疑者不明白他们实际上与弗洛伊德的压抑理论一致。本文对这些错误以及其他逻辑和学术上的失败进行了分析和批评。