Talk:Denial

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Denial (oldid, history) → DARVO (diff) Copied Denial (oldid, history) → Gaslighting (diff)

Is any other intelligent person besides myself bothered by the fact that an experimental/originally-sourced "psychologist" is quoted as defining our usage of the word "denier"? Take out the Freud definition of "denier", or quit using and linking the term for people who QUESTION the official story of their government. Neutrality, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.255.7 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I say this...? this article on Denial is SO off...you need to look at Verwerfung, Rejection... for Freud's notion of Rejection and its link to Psychosis...Verleugnung would be an everyday occurrence via normal neurotics...it is NOT a concept via Psychosis...the english translation obscures these distinctions...further, your reading of Negation , Verneinung is very off...it has nothing to do with either of these in Freud... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.201.154 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The psychoanalytic meaning is now at Denial (Freud). -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word Denial is the "treatment industry's" favorite word. Used most when a client tells them they are INSANE and a FRAUD, scamming billions from people who forced into the treatment scams of the USA by the (Il)legal system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The following paragraph was added to the article:[reply]

"It is important to note what makes denial denial and not just refusal to admit to or accept a truth or fact rests in the degree of individual's awareness of the existence of the truth or fact. In denial, an individual does not see or is mostly unconscious of existence of the truth or fact. The choice to refuse reality, then, is unconscious as well. Refusal to admit to or accept a truth or fact differs from denial in that the individual recognizes or is conscious of the existence of the truth or fact but consciously refuses to accept it as such."

The phrasing of this paragraph makes it difficult to tell just what is being claimed. It sounds like the distinction is being drawn between a person who is only denying the truth to others, and a person who is denying it to themselves as well. I am not sure this distinction is accurate. Comments? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a difficult paragraph to follow, overall. I think in a way refusal to admit or accept is actually a specific part of denial. You could argue about consious and unconcsious forms of denial, but both are denial IMHO. --ChrisEmerge 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A person that enjoys a joint of pot on Friday night and gets caught is auto matically labeled a DRUG ADDICT and needs rehabilitaion. When the person says they are not an addict and smokes on Friday night, the rehab clinic says they are in DENIAL. Just because pot is illegal "because the government says so" does not mean its use means that you are addicted to anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Types of Denial to article. Comments? -- --ChrisEmerge 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give sources for this information, such as books, journals, etc.? How widely accepted are these concepts?

--George100 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few references, the information on the page is a compilation of many different approaches to denial:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID22a-scott.pdf
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Deal-With-Denial&id=679
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=844
--ChrisEmerge 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denial also is a subconscious mechinisum our mind uses to block the pain associated with accepting the truth. Example, The Mother of a young child that suddenly dies does not accept the death and may go days, weeks, or longer behaving as if the death never happened. 75.213.169.199 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Abner Lozoya75.213.169.199 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Middle Ages, people were routinely accused of denying Christ if they did not believe in the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. It seems that the logic of denial has some kind of religious origin, which is to deny either a person's existence, or to deny somone else's religious beliefs. ADM (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that's covered by Denial of Peter. -- Beland (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have suggestions on the talk page of the article denialism that that page should be merged into this one see for example the section Talk:Denialism#Not in the Oxford English Dictionary. The the article denialism is currently under an AfD (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination)). One possibility is that the text could be merged into this article, but if this were to happen then this article would have to be refocused to look at denial more broadly than it currently does. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two forms of mental illness. In one, the person hears or sees things that aren't there--called psychosis. In the other the person doesn't hear or see things that are there--called denial. More on this later. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the correct place to merge Bunker mentality. I am no expert psychologist or sociologist. But the page bunker mentality page probably would fit better under a page that explains the psychological phenomenon better. Oldag07 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better place to merge that article would be Siege mentality - they're practically the same thing. Robofish (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is common for patients to delay mammograms or other tests because of a fear of cancer, even though this is clearly maladaptive." version on 6/30/2011

It would be nice if this specific example were changed to something that is incontrovertibly 'clearly maladaptive' such as the refusal to wear seat belts when in automobiles, or helmets while on motorcycles and bicycles, a result that has been conclusively proven via actual crash testing as well as with engineering modelling, rather than using something that is clearly subject to statistical interpretation or manipulation, controversial, as well as politically vulnerable to corruption due to profit motive, like... routine mammograms.

Some mainstream researchers and doctors, after quietly refuting mainstream policy in peer-reviewed studies and alternative healthcare books, are now publicly questioning whether the recent uptick in breast cancer has something to do with mammograms, based on the rate of increased incidence of breast cancer in recent years being highest among populations who take health insurance reimbursement of mammograms for granted. Also a vocal minority of researchers and doctors have been claiming that routine mammograms are useless or dangerous ever since routine mammography was introduced, based on widely accepted understanding of mechanisms involved in metastasis, and proven by experience given that 15-year cancer mortality rates have remained virtually rock stable ever since the introduction of post-surgical antibiotics virtually eliminated infection-related mortality.

Sorry I have no link or reference at hand to -recent- studies that achieved widespread visibility, but it has been on radio and television many times over the past couple of years. I only have my earlier reading to fall back on. One could include McDougall's Medicine and perhaps hundreds of other minority M.D. and researcher opinions dating back decades, complete with science-based rationales now validated by recent statistical evidence that has finally reached not just mainstream medical journals but also television radio newspapers and magazines, proving that most cancers start with a single cell, and double in size every 100 days, and have already metastasized widely to vital organs and/or bones within the first few years, at which time they can still only be found under a microscope (i.e. virtually undetectable). The patient is nearly always incurable by the time the original mass is finally detected via imaging or palpation or blood test - years after metastases are widespread - no matter what 'early' detection method is employed. The problem is not with the concept of 'early detection' but rather with the sensitivity and thus the 'earliness' of the currently available methods, along with the inherent cancer risk of x-rays, which are used not because they are the most effective means of imaging but because they are fast and cheap, making widespread screening economically practical even if ineffective and dangerous.

The only way to even remotely justify routine mammography is if one accepts the possibility of inflicting a radiation-induced tumor in exchange for a chance of a deceptive 'early' detection '5 year cure' along with disfiguring, physically and mentally disabling, and in some cases even completely counterproductive chemo and radiation treatment, futilely attempting to knock out solid metastases, at the expense of extreme illness and new tumors, as a 'success', all the while knowing that the statistical proof of absolute (15 year) cures of early detection and radical treatment (radiation and chemo as opposed to simple lumpectomy) is vanishingly small or nonexistent. Of course the '5 year cure' in most cases evaporates when the uncured metastases from the original tumor and/or newly inflicted tumors from the mammography and radiation and chemo come back as inoperable tumors in vital organs over the next 10 years and eventually kill the patient anyway - a similar outcome to manual breast examination and lumpectomy, if one is prepared to 'deny' the misery of the painful routine mammography and the drastic damage from radiation and chemo.

I am not a doctor and I suspect that a doctor would revert my edits anyway given the way doctors treat me in general when I am a patient, so I will leave it up to a doctor to make the edits if my concerns so move such an individual. I prefer seat belts and helmets over routine mammography based on the science and I hope there is a doctor out there who agrees strongly enough to revise the article, lending my opinion some 'official' backing, and advancing the cause of truth. thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.238.202 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seatbelts don't seem like a great replacement example; I think people tend not to wear them because they are uncomfortable or careless or think a crash is unlikely. It's not about avoiding the dread and fear of death that could be caused by discovering you have a potentially fatal disease, because a crash has fairly immediate medical consequences, and putting on a seatbelt does not have the immediate psychological consequences that a serious diagnosis does. I did rephrase this text to be less absolute; you are right that there are risks to any medical tests, including the misery of unhelpful treatment. I kept mammograms as an example, but focused on "recommended" mammograms and other tests and average consequences. In general medical authorities only recommend tests when they are statistically more likely to do good than harm. This does still need a medical citation, which might change the specific example cited. -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be a section on group denial --Penbat (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Penbat: Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about denialism? -- Beland (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article's subject is Denial (psychology). A denial of a statement of fact or other proposition is not necessarily false and in fact there are many cases where it is true. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe just a phrase in the lede for clarification. Alternatively the redirect could get this content and Denial a short page with links to lie, truth, The dictionary definition of denial at Wiktionary, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk)

The 'main' topic that someone arrives at with a keyword search should not have a clarifying parenthesis in the title of the article, per WP:TITLE. I think that is the case here - other uses are given in the hat note. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hat note? It's not prominent, as it should be for top level navigation. For example how does Holocaust Denial fit here? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed since October 2009. I think we can officially pull off the merge suggestion. Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Carnivores Make Low Estimates of Animal Minds: Meat eaters selectively deny mental abilities in the animals they consume April 14, 2012 Scientific American Mind 99.109.125.170 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added this as an external link from Speciesism -- Beland (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this article has not been tended to for awhile (the Clean Up was for 2009), so I did some housekeeping to get some good sources and added some things, most notably, denial of awareness, which is of particular interest to those interested in denial as it relates to substance abuse.

I do have a couple of ideas for expansion here, but they are ambitious enough projects that I would not mind a helping hand. There is a great deal of information abound in the peer reviewed literature on denial as it relates to a clinical environment. If anyone would be interested in seeing an expansion in this regard let me know Supaflyrobby (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this edit by MrBill3, which restored links to Climate change denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, and Holocaust denial. The main subject of this article is Freudian psychology, and not one of the three articles MrBill3 restored links to has anything to do with Freudian ideas: they are altogether unrelated topics. MrBill3 commented in his edit summary that these topics are, "classic cases of denial, subject of discussion in multiple texts)". What on Earth was that supposed to mean? What texts does MrBill3 have in mind? Are there in fact reliable sources showing that Climate change denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, and Holocaust denial have anything to do with the specific psychological mechanism Freudians call denial, and if so what are they? The desire to include these links here seems to be little more than a cheesy wish to pathologize points of view one editor disagrees with: all three may possibly be wrong, but they are not mental disorders or anything similar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free, so I take it this means you are not going to be first to volunteer to help me out on expansion? :) I understand your objections, and I responded to your post back on the AIDS Denial. I simply do not agree with your conclusions, so I can't endorse your request. However, I will be more than happy to get some folks from WikiProjects:Psychology to weigh in on your concerns, though to be perfectly honest, I do not think you are likely to have much success going that route. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, "Many contemporary psychoanalysts treat denial as the first stage of a coping cycle. When an unwelcome change occurs, a trauma of some sort, the first impulse to disbelieve begins the process of coping." From Nattrass 2010 (doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z), "his claim that HIV is harmless reinforces the normal process of denial most people undergo when faced with traumatizing information" - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial

• Norgaard, Kari Marie (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262015448.
• Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, Tim; Jaeger, Carlo C. (2001). "The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups". Global Environmental Change. 11 (2): 107–17. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

• Cohen, Stanley (2013). States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780745674308.
• Bergmann, Martin S. (1985). "Reflections on the psychological and social function of remembering the holocaust". Psychoanalytic Inquiry. 5 (1): 9–20. doi:10.1080/07351698509533572. ISSN 0735-1690.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not nearly good enough. I took a look at one of your sources, the abstract of an article on climate change denial. As one might expect, it doesn't mention Freudian ideas. It provides, as such, no justification at all for including a link to an article on controversies over global warming in an article mainly about Freudian notions. I'll look at the other sources that are available online. It will be the same story, I expect. I invite MrBill3 to stop using vague accusations of "denial" as a cheap way of attacking theories or points of view he disagrees with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention is beyond absurd. Read the entire article not the abstract. It deals specifically with the psychology of denial in dealing with climate change. The Cohen book provides an entire chapter on psychological denial. As the article states the concept of denial is not limited to Freud's original ideas but treated by modern psychoanalysts. Nattrass 2012, "Maggiore remained in denial to the end, dying in 2009 at the age of fifty-two of bilateral bronchial pneumonia and disseminated herpes viral infection, each of which is a common AIDS-related opportunistic infection." Speaks specifically about the psychological denial of an HIV/AIDS denialist. Read any modern work on the psychology of denial or Cohen's first chapter. You seem to not understand the meaning of denial as used by the modern psychological scholarly and academic community. Concepts are not limited by the originators ideas, modern scientific work on gravity or light waves do not reference Newton often that doesn't mean it isn't "Newtonian gravity" or Newton's theories of light dispersion. I suggest you read the references to this article for a start. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just split off Denial (Freud) for that; denialism covers most of the political types. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the DARVO section because it is not a "type" of denial and because it is fairly fringe even at that. There is one google scholar hit that mentions denial and DARVO (and it has no citations and is unpublished). Harassment and DARVO show no results in Google scholar. I deleted it under BRD (boldly edit, revert by someone else, then discuss), and IP deleted it with no justification for the content itself, and so now we are at the Discuss part of the cycle. What possible justification could there be for keeping this content? I dunno. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.J.Freyd's webpage Freyd, J.J. (2015). What is DARVO? Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/defineDARVO.html mentions several references for DARVO:

1. The word was coined in: J.J. Freyd in “Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory” (1997), Feminism & Psychology.
2. Freyd, J.J.& Birrell, P.J. (2013). Blind to Betrayal. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Harsey, S. & Freyd, J.J. (2015, in preparation) “It Never Happened, You're a Liar, and I'm the Victim”: An Exploration of DARVO.

EDIT: Here are much larger lists of citations:

1. wiktionary:Citations:DARVO
2. [1]

--MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the DARVO section to gaslighting. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Denied (song) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Denied (song) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- lomrjyo ^talk 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]