Talk:Pit of despair

Mirrored box

This is first description I've seen that includes a comment about mirrors. Do you have a source?

I will scan a photo of the isolation box used in the 3,6,12 month experiments.Rbogle 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

whoops. There was a small mirrored window for observations. I misread the sentence. Rbogle 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Early infanticidal childrearing

This experiment is shocking; but very impressive from the psychological perspective. I wonder if someone has related it to Lloyd deMause’s observations and theories of primitive, cannibalistic human tribes? (in New Guinea some tribe parents still eat their babies). See the flaming controversy between anthropologists and psychohistorians in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing. —Cesar Tort 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. Its interesting that you say its an "impressive" experiment, as the general consensus (from both the animal rights lobby and a significant number of scientists) was that it revealed very little at great cost. I'm not sure i agree that it is entirely without merit, personally, though i concur that the cost/benefit is questionable.

I guess the problem with relating it to human behaviour is the inherent anthropomorphism applied to the experiment interpretation. Monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans. How we define 'depressed', 'happy' or 'disturbed' animals is simply an interpretation of their behaviour. Some natural primate behaviour would appear disturbing if a human was to do it. Moreover, clearly in animal models - even those with complex social behaviours - hardwired innate behaviour is much more influential than learned or adaptive behaviour. A common tactic in animal behavioural experimentation is attempting to directly corrolate it to human situation. People do it all the time, of course, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Still, even with these caveats, i agree that the data does appear to reflect the observed effect of childhood abuse in humans and its manifestation in later life. What interests me is the variation: when "placed in isolation [they] emerge badly damaged, and that some recover and some do not". This seems, to me, like very strong evidence for genetic variation playing a role. If you don't mind, may i ask (bearing in mind this is a controlled experiment i.e. the variables in terms of "abuse" and "recovery" are consistant) how would you interpret these differences in terms of the trauma model? I would have thought it unlikely they vary in terms of having an "enlightened witness". Thanks. Rockpocket 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, your assumption that humans and monkeys will behave differently when depressed is just an assumption, as is that monkey behavior is more hard-wired, if that's what you meant. And how we define "depressed" in humans is based on behavior too. If you visit your doctor and you're smiling, laughing, and rosy-cheeked, but tell him you're very depressed, he's not going to take you seriously.

Regarding the point that some monkeys recovered and some didn't, the sources for this experiment are frustratingly imprecise, so it's best not to extrapolate too much. I keep meaning to look for sources who speak about it in more detail, but I haven't gotten round to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi SV. You are correct, it is an assumption they will behave differently. As much of an assumption in assuming that they will behave the same when depressed. Ironically enough, i think we would each be making the exact opposite argument were we talking about testing drugs on the monkeys! Which says to me that there are key differences and there are key similarities - its all about interpreting them correctly. I agree that the criteria for "recovery" appears to be unclear and subjective, but then again, so is the whole experiment (subjective, i mean, in terms of attaching "meaning" to the behaviour of a species other than ourselves). I think the difference in attaching meaning to human conditions is that we all know what it feels like to be depressed or happy, and we can interpret that behaviour in others based on our own understanding of that. I have no idea what it is like to be a mouse or a monkey and thus interpreting their behaviour in terms of our personal understanding is clearly anthropomorphic. This isn't to dismiss the findings of the study, simply that direct corrolation with human psychiatric behaviour is misleading. Rockpocket 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. The significant numbers of scientists you mention were not psychohistorians. I doubt animals can have an “enlightened witness” (in Alice Miller’s verbal sense). The fact that some people got mad in Auschwitz while others did not shouldn’t be interpreted as genetic predisposition. The disturbed prisoners may have had a previous history of abuse at home that made them more vulnerable. At least I know one Auschwitz survivor, Yakoff Skurnik, who published a book under a pseudonym. All of his family was killed in the Nazi camp but he had been treated so well during his childhood that he didn’t get mad there [1]. My guess is that if the monkeys who did it had stayed a little longer in the pit of despair they’d have gotten mad too. All of us have a breaking point, including animals. If I remember correctly, some psychohistorians have mentioned this monkey experiment, but I have to check my references again. It is not anthropomorphism to note that the mother monkey chewed her baby’s hands and feet and to compare this with the savages in New Guinea who eat their babies. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RP, that's an old fallacy, the supposed inappropriateness of being anthropomorphic. We have no reason to suppose that, when a monkey looks depressed, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being looks depressed. Indeed, that's why we use them in psychology experiments. It's adding insult to injury to abuse them in order to gain information about ourselves, but then to say: "We can't assume you're anything like us at all." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And the fact that the experiment impressed me doesn’t mean I approve animal experimentation: I abhor it. Incidentally the Yakoff Skurnik book I mentioned has as a subtitle “A Mengele experiment”. (BTW, what means “RP”?) —Cesar Tort 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RP is Rockpocket. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats why it is, in my opinion, a poor experiment in terms of informing human behaviour. What we learn about "ourselves" from this is debatable. I'm afraid i strongly disagree regarding anthropomorphism, SV. I hate to "pull rank" (it always smacks of intellectual oneupmanship, however in this case it necesary to explain my example) but i'm a behavioural geneticist by profession.

Let me give you the same example i gave Cesar the other day. I have a mouse that lacks a particular gene. This causes males to attempt to mate with other males instead of fighting with them [2]. The obvious anthropomorphic interpretation of this is that these mice are homo- or, more accurately, bisexual. Using your rationale, we have would have no reason to suppose that, when a mouse acts homosexual, there's anything wildly different going on from when a human being acts homosexual. Your conclusion, therefore, would be that we had found a genetic basis for sexuality.

This is the assumption most people initially make. If it were true, i would be rich, (in)famous and have my own Wikipedia article. I don't. And thats because it is an entirely incorrect assumption and informs nothing about sexual attraction in the human sense. For most animals, mating, fighting (and probably suckling) is encoded in a hard-wired innate manner, through a neural mechanism that appears to be entirely lacking in humans. This isn't an assumption, it has been shown genetically, anatomically and developmentally, that this system is not present in humans. Therefore, this experiment informs nothing about human behaviour, except as an excellent paradigm for neural coding (which was why it was published in Science).

Its true that, if you are going to anthropomorphise, primates are your safest bet. Nevertheless, even primate behaviour has to be taken in context of natural behaviour and 'depression' and 'happiness' are not defined animal characteristics, just as homo- or bi-sexuality concepts aren't either (with the possible exception of bonobos). Assuming that an animal is "depressed" because it "looks" it, is no different from assuming my mice are "homosexual" because they look it. In other words,it is the first step towards a very, very shaky conclusion. Which takes me back to my original point, this experiment tells you about simian behaviour, which is a model for human behaviour with all the caveats that must entail. My concerns about these experiments are mainly on cost/benefit grounds, but humanistic over-interpretation comes a close second. For me the difference between the monkeys is interesting (albeit under-reported), because this is the best controlled data. Cesar suggests it is a threshold issue (if some were kept in the pit longer, they would have stayed "mad" instead of "recovering"). So my next, obvious, question is: what does your model propose is responsible for the different "madness thresholds" in the monkeys (bearing in mind every other environmental parameter is controlled)? Rockpocket 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading this reply, i realise it sounds like i'm saying monkeys should not be called depressed or happy. That is not what i mean. Clearly within the context of natural monkey behaviour (grooming, playing etc) a monkey can be more or less socially interactive. Defining this as "depression" or "happiness" is not incorrect as a term for relative behaviour compared to other intraspecifics. But it is relative, not absolute. It does not automatically follow that this "depression" is biologically or emotionally equivalent to human "depression" as we understand it. Suggesting that would be behavioural anthropomorphism and that is what i was warning against. The difference between the two are subtle, but important. And thats not to say that the experiments can't inform about human "depression", just that direct behavioural comparisons are presumptive. This paper for example, does make a correlation, but note it is not using the specific "depressive" behaviours themselves directly as the comparative parameter, but a putative biomarker of depression: 5-HT(1A) receptor binding potential. Admittedly Harlow didn't have the technology to do that, and it is not fair to criticise him for lacking what was technically impossible at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't interpret his data with appropriate caution. Sorry about the monologue, but hopefully i've made myself clearer now. Rockpocket 06:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "love" in Background

I believe that the word "love" should be changed to a word with less religious and emotional connotations, such as "parental care". 66.253.36.140 09:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious connotation??--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems he would have used the word love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow#Pit_of_despair .143.167.174.86 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "psychosis"

I think that "psychosis" is a really loaded word to use in the article, because it implies, at least to my non-psychiatric mind, too much knowledge of the workings of a monkey's mind. According to Wikipedia, "Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired", and can we really say that about a non-human creature? If, OTOH, it is a term generally used by experts when describing this study, then I withdraw the objection. --JdwNYC 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the word the sources use, and there's no reason to suppose it's difficult to see when a monkey's thought processes and perception are severely impaired; at least, no harder than to see when a human being's are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

In my opinion, this article has an excessive amount of quotes, and I feel that they are being used to dodge the NPOV rules. arguably the most grave offender is the conclusion, ending the article with a quote, particularly such a POV one, is never good Encyclopaedic manner. I'm adding the NPOV template for now, hopefully we can get a good NPOV rework without needing a major rewrite. Riffraffselbow 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going about this incorrectly, please feel free to revert the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riffraffselbow (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Disturbing

I found this quite disturbing. Should/Can it have a warning on it? User:CaptinJohn 09 Feb 2007

Wikipedia is not censored and if you look around, we have quite a lot of disturbing content with no warning labels. About the farthest we go is to "spoiler" warnings when an article might spoil a novel/movie/etc. for you.

Atlant 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also find it merely disturbing. The prolonged abuse and torture of monkey babies can hardly be explained as scientific research. About warning, I think one would be suitable. But rather than that, some backround of people who were in charge of this, and the details of this 'research' would contribute to the content of the article. Unfortunately, I didn't find any resources I could use.

Jesus christ, that's absolutely awful. It makes me want to vomit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.228.230 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am actually glad wikipedia has articles about everything, but I think some things should have warnings. Like articles about sexual organs have pictures, that a school student can access. I think that things like that should have a warning too, when I was in school, porn was blocked but wikipedia articles on sexual organs were not. Neither were the pictures, so basically thanks to wikipedia I always liked to look at pussy at school. This one though, is worse than any of those little things like that. I think that whoever thought up the pit of despair experiment should be beaten to death. It makes me sick and reminds me just how much I hate this world. School Sick 801 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that its upsetting, there is scientific merit in almost anything. Its potentially arguable that the most horrific of subjects could possibly net the most useful results. What if some type of research like this or something similar were to bring about information which describes the situations that lead to rape? And what if that data helped to eliminate it, or severely reduce its occurance? Wouldn't tangible results make the unfortunate things which led to them worth it at some point? The cliche comment of the ends justifying the means aside, don't they? JN322 06:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Not in this case. There were no hope for valuable information. There's important and valuable science that are done with animal testing that I support, but this is just animal cruelty... your arguments could be used for the testing in Nazi-Germany on human subjects. Sometimes you have to draw a line.--84.217.113.151 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally when someone immediately compares something they're not in agreement with to nazisim, I assume they do so because they cannot come up with any other valid argument. Making it comparable to "nuh-uh". JN322 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking strictly about the morality of psychological and physiological experiments; the contention that the potential results and/or practical application of the "valuable" results of an experiment morally validates the processes used to find said results is false. It would be exceeding valuable to the medical community to have experiments in which people were forced to run past the point of endurance, to the point at which their muscles began to tear and bones break. The information we could gain about how to predict and prevent such injuries and possibly increase human endurance would be extremely useful. Is it right to perform such experiments? No. Even with volunteers, the purposeful injury or permanent damaging of test subjects is certainly wrong in humans, very morally gray in animals. As for JN322's question... "The cliche comment of the ends justifying the means aside, don't they?" The answer is no, they do not. An absolute statement that "yes, the ends justify the means" will lead to acts of cruelty, abuse, and evil. For example, would it not be even more valuable to the scientific community to observe humans under this "Pit of Despair" experiment? The pain and likely insanity inflicted upon the subjects wouldn't even be an unfortunate side effect of the experiment, but rather its purpose. The benefits to human psychology would undoubtedly be much more valuable than the experiments with chimps. These experiments, however, would violate the rights of these people and subject them to cruel torture for the sake of understanding possible causes of depression. These people would be considered unfortunate sacrifices for the furthering of scientific understanding, but don't the ends justify the means?

What rights animals have is still up for debate across most of the world, especially when Great Apes are involved. Whether sentience, sapience, or relation to humans becomes the determining factor for the establishment of protections and rights for animals, some kind of system must be recognized, some line drawn which allows useful scientific discoveries to be made, but not beyond a certain point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.90.32 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting experiment lengths

The opening paragraph states "Harlow placed baby monkeys in the chamber alone for up to six weeks", but the caption of the second photograph states "...after six months of total isolation". The citations are merely names of individuals, and I cannot establish the correct time period.

All references to experiment length should be deleted unless this can be corrected. 84.9.165.236 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They are different chambers. He left baby monkeys alone in various chambers for up to two years. The source indicate that the longest he left them in the Pit of Despair was six weeks. But you're right -- it's confusing and we need to clarify it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One Sided

All the information seems to come out of Singer's Animal Liberation. No attempt is made to give the other side - the benefits of the research, Harlow's reasoning for the research, the problem of psychosis and depression in children and the affect on future child rearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I don't think there is any way these experiments could ever have been justified (speaking as a lab animal tech here), I think there should at least be a mention of the real reasoning behind it, and whether anyone got anything useful from them at all. If not that should be cleary stated, not just implied. Also it seems to me that the experiments may have helped the cause of animal rights and maybe helped push through some much needed legislation for monitoring and regulation of animal research? If so that should also be stated clearly. --KatjaKat (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. A problem I see with this article is that it is completely deprived of context. I just read an article in the New York times that discusses the experiment, and it gives rather more background than this article does. To quote the Times:

The series of Harlow's experiments that followed revolutionized psychology in the middle of the 20th century. Until then, as Blum vividly documents, the dominant thinking in psychology was very different. An extreme position, made popular by psychologists like John Watson, held that young children should never be caressed, held or physically comforted by parents. Watson and later behaviorists like B. F. Skinner claimed that a baby reaching for Mom is simply reflecting an association between Mom and food. Early psychologists said that mothers who responded warmly to a baby's cries would produce excessively dependent adults, unable to function in American society. Despite the absence of supporting evidence, this view profoundly influenced not only parental behavior but national institutions like orphanages, which minimized contact between caregivers and children, and hospitals, which denied parents the opportunity to comfort their sick and frightened children. full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/books/no-more-wire-mothers-ever.html)

So maybe Harlow's experiment "invariably proving what we all knew in advance," was obvious to the literary critic Booth, but it doesn't appear to have been either common knowledge or common practice institutionally. On that note, I'd say that ONLY having a literary critic, a junior member of faculty, and a former student form the entire basis for the reaction to the experiments isn't just limited, but is skewed, if not outright biased cherry-picking. If my thirty seconds on Google turns up diametrically opposed viewpoints with more citations than this article gives, I think this article needs to be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.228.115 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the line "the irony of this statement apparently lost on him." This statement is not neutral, and was removed to follow Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.

It is EXTREMELY important to maintain a neutral Point of View on Wikipedia. Please remember that this is SCHOLARLY project, and uncited or NPOV statements will NOT be tolerated. If you cannot follow the NPOV guidelines, please leave Wikipedia. 72.23.80.194 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be an asshole. Mistakes happen. Wikipedia was made as a collaborative encyclopaedia that encourages everyone to contribute and will require edits. Simply because you are a regular contributor does not entitle you to hold an air of superiority over less experienced users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.124.1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2010

Title: POV concerns

I have placed a POV tag on the page. I am doing this because of the article title. According to the body of the page, "pit of despair" is one of several (disturbing) terms "used" by the creator of the apparatus, but is not the official name. It is unclear how extensively this name was used, and therefore the selection of this particular page title, as opposed to some other title, raises questions of neutrality. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing some more reading on this issue, and am continuing to do so. At this point, I see some value in keeping the page title as it is, but clarifying the text of the lead to make clearer what the origin of the term is. Also, I note that this page contrasts in tone to that on Harry Harlow. The bio page is appropriately balanced between the good and the bad, whereas the page here is more prosecutorial than encyclopedic, and so it would be helpful to provide more balance in the coverage of the reactions, good and bad, to Harlow's work. As I find sources for all of this, I will add it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article could be move to vertical chamber apparatus, given it is the correct technical term for it. I am not familiar enough with the issue to know whether the "Pit of Despair" is a colloquial term widely adopted by Harlow himself or whether its popularity only comes from the AR lobby. If it is the former, its probably better to leave it as is. If it is the latter, then moving could be a better option. It might be worth listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves and having a discussion. Or you could be bold and wait for a reversion. Rockpocket 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I think. It's a bit of both, because it was Harlow himself who used the term, but it clearly has been seized upon used subsequently as AR propaganda. At this point, I'm in favor of keeping the title as is, based upon its use by both "sides" of the debate, and upon its notoriety as a symbol of the debate. (The other title is already a redirect to here.) I'm still planning on doing a significant expansion of the page, and I'm sorry that I've let so much time pass without getting around to it. (Right now, it's second-to-next on my to-do list, after Causes of schizophrenia, so hopefully I'll get to it soon.) There are actually quite a few reliably-sourced facts that can be added for POV balance, including the influence of this research on extending visiting hours for (human) pediatric patients in hospitals. So, I'm going to try to make this into a more balanced page, and I think it has a lot of potential to be quite interesting. Thanks for your reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Harlow who called it that. It hasn't been "seized upon" by anyone. That was the name he gave it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Its more a question of whether it is the name, or a name. That is not clear, reading the text. Rockpocket 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was the name Harlow gave it. It's the name that everyone knows it by. He chose it because it was so descriptive. See e.g. Blum, Love at Goon Park, p. 219. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He clearly also gave it the name "vertical chamber apparatus" (as described in Blum, Love at Goon Park, p. 218 and as can be seen from all his scholarly publications). See also [3] vs [4]. As is often the case, it comes down to perspective. If sources are criticizing Harlow's methodology (or are discussing criticism of his methodology), then "Pit of Despair" is invariably used, if it is being discussed from a scientific perspective, where the results of the experiments are the focus of the source, then "vertical chamber apparatus" is typically used. Since a good article should cover both of these aspects, its difficult to see where that leaves us in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. Rockpocket 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He used the name "pit of despair" and it was his experiment, and this is the name it's now widely known by. I've clarified in the lead that it also had a technical name.

What does need to be checked is the length of time the monkeys were left in it. The sources are inconsistent. I've read six weeks, six months, one year, and two years. Part of the problem is that he conducted different experiments with different devices, different times, and subjects removed from their mothers at various points, but then he called them all "the isolates," and this has confused the sources. Someone needs to go back and find the primary sources, and hope that they're not equally confusing. I've gone with six weeks for now, as this is the most common time given for the pit of despair, but only just. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think anyone is questioning that he used that name, only whether that is the primary or most common name he used. There appears to inconsistency between sources. For example, he wrote a 1971 review about all his experiments and he describes the apparatus he created (in his own words) as being termed the "vertical chamber"... [5] There is no mention of "pit of despair". The name that it is "widely known by" depends, I suppose, on what company one keeps. Rockpocket 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The company we keep as Wikipedians is that of reliable sources. Regarding times, I've just read that he kept some in there for up to 15 years, which I can only hope and assume is wrong. Every time I try to pin this down, I find a wider variation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then one would think the most reliable source for what Harlow preferred to call his apparatus would by Harlow's own words, no? Either way, I'm not advocating we change the name, simply that it be acknowledged that there is ambiguity and that "Pit of Despair" is one of a number of terms he used. As for the time he kept them in there, I'll look at his publications and see what they say. Rockpocket 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You quote an article in a science journal with Suomi as a co-author. Suomi was one of the people who tried to persuade Harlow not to call it "pit of despair," and that's anyway not the kind of title they would use in a science paper. Remember that a key component of animal research is never to be descriptive about what you're doing. Harlow was, at least, very honest about it, when allowed to be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats an telling analysis, but it is analysis. Just because you distrust scientific writing does not mean we should dismiss it as a reliable source. Ironically enough, I would say that a "vertical chamber" is much more descriptive of the apparatus than a "pit of despair" (The former better describes the apparatus, the latter describes the experimental outcome), but that is my analysis. Rockpocket 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the apparatus, but about the experiment. Not sure what you mean by "telling," and I didn't say I don't trust scientific writing. I said that animal researchers tend to use words that aren't expressive of what they're actually doing. We've had this conversation several times before as a result of that. I recall you even objected to "Britches" having a name, until you found out it was the researchers who had named him, as though they are legitimate namers, but no one else is. This is why I argue that we stick to reliable sources, all of them, and we use the words they use. Then discussions like this one can mostly be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recollection is incorrect. For the record, my opinion on the issue of Britches name: "I don't really see a major problem with this article. We could argue about what it is called but ultimately Britches would get redirected there, so I think we could use our time more productively." [6] Rockpocket 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I got you mixed up with Animalresearcher. I hope you'll take the point nevertheless, namely that what matters is which name catches on and is widely used, not who originally did the naming. Researchers don't own these experiments or their descriptions or vocabulary. I have the same argument on Israel-Palestine pages. Pro-Israel editors want to call the expulsion of Palestinians from the land that became Israel by their operational names. For example, they would prefer "Operation Danny," to Exodus from Lydda, or the even more expressive "Lydda Death March." But the people who carried out that event can't extend their ownership of it into how it is named and viewed by history. My argument here is the same. The researchers might want to call something "Experiment X," so that it doesn't signal its content, but if the rest of the world ends up calling it "the absolutely terrifying dungeon experiment," that becomes its "name." We are helped here by the fact that the name used by the original researcher and the name that caught on are the same, which makes it even odder than anyone would suggest changing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that (and, as I indicated at Britches and here, I am not adverse to using commonly used names in these situations). However, "commonly used name" does not always equal "non-technical name". The same argument can be made the other way: just because a small number of animal rights activists choose an emotive term to promote their preferred view of something does not mean that it automatically trumps a name widely used across the scientific community, just because it is non-technical. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, but dispute the suggestion that one is inherently better than the other for our purposes. We should judge each on a case-by-case basis, rather than dismiss scientists because they don't describe it emotively enough (in your opinion).

That's exactly what I said. And it's not that others choose an emotive term. It's that animal researchers choose terms that don't fully describe what they're doing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, the reason I said your analysis was "telling" was because you appeared to suggest the reason scientists prefer terms like "vertical chamber" to "pit of despair" is because they are trying to hide something ("so that it doesn't signal its content"). That is telling because it shows how one can find malfeasance anywhere when one sets out to look for it. In fact the real reason is much more mundane. Scientific method is based upon the principle of stating hypotheses and then challenging them without bias. The hypothesis Harlow had was that isolation would influence emotional states leading to dysfunctional behaviour. If he called his apparatus a "pit of despair" in his publications he would be preempting the results of his experiments (i.e it would cause despair), which is a form of experimental bias that fails the scientific methods and would ring alarm bells in peer review. So, scientists instead use neutral terms to describe their techniques (note a "vertical chamber apparatus" is an appropriate name irrespective of the effect it would have on a monkey, the "pit of despair" is not). Attributing motive to scientists based on AR activist rhetoric does a disservice to neutrality. Rockpocket 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with AR. (It doesn't do to see AR everywhere as a motive, as though anyone not sharing your world view must be an AR activist.) It was Harlow's colleagues who tried to persuade him not to use that term. It was the same with "rape rack," another term he insisted on using. They did not like the names to be so explicit, even in casual use where it didn't really matter. Regarding the pit of despair (he first wanted to call it the "dungeon of despair," which they felt was even worse), Blum writes: "His colleagues and friends tried to persuade him to stay with the technical description. They warned him that it would be politically easier to use less inflammatory, less visual—perhaps less candid—descriptions." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the time in the chambers. In 1965 he published an experiment using his an "isolation chamber" (which looks like File:Harlow-Isolationchamber.gif); he put monkeys in there from a few hours after birth until 3, 6, or 12 months of age. These appear to be the longest isolations, but they were not to break social bonds "in order to create the symptoms of depression". Those bond breaking experiments appear to be shorter. For example, he published a 1971 study where he put them in the vertical apparatus for 30 days, a 1972 study for 10 weeks, a 1974 study for 4 weeks. I can't find any paper that uses that apparatus longer than that. Rockpocket 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have one saying ten weeks, could you give me the citation, please? I can then add it to the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It is Vertical-Chamber Confinement of Juvenile-Age Rhesus Monkeys, PMID 4621802. Rockpocket 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, that was refreshing. My thanks to Rockpocket for taking the brunt of that, instead of me. Seems a bit odd, given that there really does not seem to be much disagreement about keeping the title of the page as it is. However, let's refrain from this business of "minor" edits removing POV tags before the edits (that I described above) have taken place and been agreed to. The page is still very POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind an occasional forthright discussion with SV. It seems we are more or less in agreement on the substantive issue, so there is no harm done. From my perspective as a reader, the article appears to lack what these sets of experiments contributed to the scientific literature. We are told, rather simplistically, by Blum they are "common sense results" - but given that Harlow's work appears to be cited in a number of psychology textbooks, I'm guessing there is a little more to it than that. Rockpocket 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly correct about that. As I started to say above, there is, in fact, a great deal of reliably-sourced information about some very good things that have come out of this (arguably) bad research. Right now, the page is badly POV, because it reads like a prosecutor's brief against Harlow. It will take me some time, but I am working on adding sourced material that presents a more balanced and nuanced picture: both an animal welfare movement and also some very compassionate insights into human health care that have risen out of this "pit." Please understand, I have no intention of making the page into an apology! The ethical failings need to remain covered, but a page that covers the good and the bad in an NPOV way has the potential to be very interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean apologia, not apology, and an apologia is in part what we do need, in the sense of explanation, rather than excuse. I think you'll be hard pressed to find it though, given that the research's conclusions were self-evident, and indeed were what the experiment was premised on in the first place. I would like to see a scientist who says, "We now believe X because of this experiment and we didn't believe it beforehand." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very minor point, but the two words are actually considered to be synonyms.[7][8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy minor points of English, and I have to say that "apologia" is only partly synonymous with "apology" (in the strict sense noted by Slim). The thing with articles of this nature is that they should be filed under their most natural name, which in most cases, other things being equal, is the most likely search term. If either of you actually has a serious argument that this article is about "vertical chamber apparatus", rather than the experiments that apparatus was designed for, then I'm yet to see it. It's my belief that the tag you have used to replace the disputed tag is simply a backdoor way to reinstate the disputed tag, having much the same effect. I think you should set a time for removing it, particularly if you are adding material that you consider addresses your concerns. Grace Note (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) About that minor point, you seem to want to prolong it, but just click on the reference links I provided. (2) About the title of the page, please do not mischaracterize what I have said. I have said that, as things stand now, I support keeping the Pit of despair title. That's not currently the issue, at least not for me, although it appears to be for some other editors who have commented. (3) These inappropriate comments about setting deadlines are getting tiresome. If you can point to a policy that says that you can assign me a time or require me to set one, then please do so. I have been very careful to explain my reasoning, for those who bother to take the time to read it. The time that I would remove the POV tags is after I and others have added new material as discussed, and there is consensus in this talk that the tags are not needed any more. (4) Your "backdoor" comment violates WP:AGF and borders on a personal attack. If you want to change it back to the regular POV tag, that's fine with me. I used it correctly, to ask for more editors to look at the page with "fresh eyes." They have been doing so, and enough of them have agreed that there are POV problems that, per policy, it is appropriate for tagging to remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When?

The article says the 70s (when in the 1970s), but the "monkey love" link under Further Reading says 1959! Hugo999 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag

Tryptofish, you do nothing but cause problems around animal rights or animal testing articles. Please edit constructively. If you have material you can add to this, it would be most welcome, but you can't add a POV tag in lieu of making those edits, and then not make them. The tag has been there for months. Please either identify what you feel needs to be fixed, and say what it is on talk and get consensus to add it, or leave the tag off. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this

I'm starting a new section for this point, so it's not contaminated by previous issues. One of my hopes for an article like this is that, if properly written, it could be extremely interesting. It touches on a range of important issues: man's arrogance, the limitless nature of curiosity for its own sake, the willingness of students to go along with anything a more senior academic is doing, why no one tried to stop it (or perhaps they did). Then the issues being researched: the importance of relationships, what if anything was learned from the experiments, why it needed to be learned at that time (i.e. the ideological backdrop regarding child-raising), and what practical changes that knowledge brought. Issues about Harlow: his own depression and personality. Issues about the ethics of experimentation in general: should we use knowledge gleaned from unethical work?

In all the time I've been editing Wikipedia, I've rarely seen animal researchers—who have easy access to all the sources—write in a critical and interesting way about what they do. All I've seen is defending it, trying to remove criticism. Similarly, I've rarely seen people opposed to animal research willing to admit that something might be learned even from experiments regarded as awful.

As Tryptofish says above, here we have the potential to write a truly interesting article, but that can only be done if everyone is willing to be honest and open. Look, just as one example—and maybe this is unfair, but it's something I noticed—Rockpocket, when you found the source saying monkeys were in there for 10 weeks, not six, why didn't you fix the lead? I'm pretty sure if the lead had said ten, and you'd found it was only six, you'd have fixed it. When I found it was six weeks (as I thought) and not a year, I changed it. So I just wonder why you didn't do the same.

Similarly, when you found the ages of the monkeys used (3 months to 3 years), why did you just add "older"? Seems to me that, if you'd discovered only adult monkeys were used, you'd have added the ages. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I apologize, but what I perceive is an unwillingness (or inability) to approach this in a disinterested way, an unwillingness to add the good and the bad equally. I may be guilty of the same. It's easy to see it in others, hard to see it in ourselves.

So anyway, the bottom line is a plea that, if we're going to work on this, both sides agree to try to produce as good an article as the sources will allow, including adding material that we personally dislike. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. I would have preferred you asked why first, rather then assuming bad faith and offering your own (incorrect) interpretation of my motivation. I don't really see why I need to justify myself, but since I stand accused here is my explanation:

The primary reason I didn't add that source for 10 weeks myself is because you explicitly asked for it and therefore I assumed you planned to do something with it. I don't appreciate being criticized for not doing enough with a source I only looked for on your request. Secondly, it was only my perfunctory search that revealed a source for 10 weeks, that does not in anyway mean 10 weeks was the most he kept them in there for, we need a secondary source to put boundary limits such as "for up to ten weeks".

Regarding why I used "older": I have no idea if he put monkeys older than 3 years or younger than three months in the apparatus. I do know that he said the purpose of the apparatus was to put socialized animals in there, older than the newborns he used for the isolation chamber. Therefore it is better to use a less specific term such as "older" that we know to be accurate then a specific term ("between three months and three years old") that could well be inaccurate. Detail is good, but only if it is correct detail. Again, if we want to limit the age with specific numbers, we need a secondary source rather than using syntheses of primary sources.

I am willing to spend some time searching out his papers, reading them in their entirety and to try to get to the bottom of the length of his experiments. I don't doubt that your motivation, SV, is to make this a balanced article. It would make this a much more enjoyable editing experience if you afforded the rest of us the same good faith rather than look for evidence of bias in every edit (or - bizarrely - even in the lack of an edit). Rockpocket 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that I decided to take a little time and think about it, before replying here. Not surprisingly, I'm very sympathetic to the points Rockpocket just made. But perhaps more notably, I want to pick up on what SlimVirgin said, aside from the comments directed at Rockpocket, and say that I see a lot to agree with. Where you said "It's easy to see it in others, hard to see it in ourselves," you were, of course, correct, and onto something key here. I appreciate that you said it, as I suspect that it really came from the heart, and I see it as very helpful as an explanation (apologia!). Where you commented that you think you never see editors who have research backgrounds providing POV balance supporting AR, please consider that, in part, we perceive many of these pages as having a pro-AR and anti-research POV, and we perceive our edits as restoring NPOV. Consequently, it's natural that our edits appear NPOV to us and POV to others, just as your edits appear NPOV to you and POV to others. But, in part, the accusation is also not true. I, like Rockpocket, should not really have to defend myself, but consider this, where I added pro-AR material to a page. And I do quite a bit of RVV, including this, which resulted in this at my talk from that same person–who obviously has a different take on POV than either of us. Those are just a few diffs that I can remember (because I really don't have a lot of time), but my point is to, please, AGF, and discuss content, not editors.

With that in mind, I think your first paragraph actually indicates a lot of shared interests with what I suggested higher up in this talk. Let me please suggest the following. Both Rockpocket and I seem to feel that the POV template still belongs on the page, and that my edits to the lead, that you reverted along with the template, are appropriate. I suggest we restore all of that, and that we be patient while addressing the issues I clearly described above in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel really sad as I say this. Just read what I said immediately above. I tried, really. But what follows below is just a continuation of framing and personal attacks. Fact: both Rockpocket and I say very clearly that we continue to feel that the page has POV problems, and we have explained very clearly what we mean and how to fix it going forward. There has been no consensus to remove the POV tag. Per policy, the tag should be restored, not deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec; to RP) Regarding the 10 week source, my question is why I had to ask for it. I do feel that, if you'd discovered a source that made the time less than what was already in the lead, you'd have changed it immediately. I'm basing this on the way I've seen you edit in the past.

I suppose what I feel I'm seeing here is an entirely uninformed response. You and Tryptofish work in this field. You both started editing this article without being asked to, so clearly you must be interested. But no reading seems to have been done. T is claiming POV. How can she know it's POV if she's not read anything? If you don't have time to read the sources, please email them to me, and I'll be happy to read them so you don't have to.

You might also want to look at your own posts and Tryptofish's before mentioning AGF. T adds a POV tag, then announces the page needs edits she has no time to make, but that the tag must stay in place anyway. Then there are references to the "company one keeps," AR "propaganda," and "telling analysis," and this isn't the first page that has seen these barbs. If others were to respond in kind every single time, where would we be?

The one thing we do agree on is that we would all have a more enjoyable editing experience if we just stuck to the sources, and ran with them, no matter whether we agree with them or not. That's what I'd like to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct I am uninformed, I said as much myself when I entered this discussion. Until you asked ("Someone needs to go back and find the primary sources") I had never read any of Harlow's work. My "interest" in the article came primarily from the fact that I added the Wiki-project banner, so it is on my watch list, and I saw Tryptofish's comment about POV and had a look myself. As you requested, I looked at a few of his papers to see how long he put the animals in the apparatus for, I documented what I found (as a favor to you) and now I'm being criticized because, firstly, I didn't take those (incomplete) sources and rewrite a section based on them and now, again, because I dare to edit an article in which I am not an expert on the subject? Please. Finally, if my goal was to sanitize this article, why on earth would I even provide the 10 week citation for you? Your claims are ludicrous (and those so-called "barbs" are nothing of the sort, its patently obvious that if one in is the company of AR activists, it will be more widely known as the pit of despair and if one is in the company of scientists, its will be more widely known as the vertical chamber apparatus. How that is a "barb" at you God only knows.)

However the more reading I do to inform myself, the more of a POV mess this article seems to be. As its written, its mixes up lots of different experiments picking bits and pieces of each. Its also very reliant on a single source for most of the content, which is always a concern. The purpose appears to be to show how horrible the experiments were, without actually describing them with any accuracy. For example:

• If one reads Stephen Suomi's actual thesis, it states that the original purpose of the vertical chamber was to put newborn in there for 45 days (6.5 weeks) immediately after birth, but they couldn't maintain newborns in the chamber, so instead they isolated them for 45 days, then placed them in the chamber for 45 days. 45 days is less than three months which rather puts paid to "Most of the monkeys placed inside it were at least three months old and had already bonded with others." Wrong in both cases.
• His thesis documents many other experiments in the apparatus, many of which involves "four-day periods... during which they were confined to vertical chambers", no mention of these experiments, oddly, could that be because they don't sound horrific enough?
• Our article says Suomi concludes he "could find no monkey who had any defense against it", that "Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged" and "a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression." I can find no mention of those conclusions, and that language is entirely at odds with how he actually concludes his research: " I have demonstrated that depressive behavior of a stable and lasting form can be induced reliably in young monkey subjects." I would suggest we don't attribute the conclusions of others to Prof. Suomi, unless someone can show where he actually said those things.
• Finally, the reaction section is hopelessly one-sided (what is that about only adding material that favors one's point of view?) A quick good search finds Harlow's work described in terms such as "ingenious" and also demonstrates how he challenged previously held beliefs about attachment (which rather invalidates that assumption that it the results were self-evident). Would you like those to be added, or is my lack of expertise a barrier to this? Rockpocket 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then add other material. But please don't delete what's there. Not sure what your point is about Suomi's interviews with Blum. I have given a citation. Are you saying you can't find it?

All I know is this:

1. When RP and I edit together, we tend to be quite efficient. There is minimal talk page expenditure, good use of sources, clear and accurate edits, good writing. That has been my perception, anyway.

2. When Tryptofish and I edit together, there is maximum talk page expenditure, poor use of sources, poor article contributions, barbs on talk, POV tags etc, to the point where I have to stop editing, because of the time drain. I even took Animal rights off my watchlist for quite a while because of it. I had been planning to get it to FA, which can't be done where every sentence is picked apart and rewritten to be less communicative.

Now, RP, perhaps you can help out here, but what shouldn't happen is that the experience I cite in (2) be extended to (1). That would be moving in the wrong direction.

What I suggest, RP, is if you would like us both to make efforts to improve this article, you email me the material you think I ought to read. I don't have the same access to it as you do. I've been adding to the article what I do have access to, but it's limited. Also, please be careful using the primary sources in case Suomi wasn't the only one conducting these experiments or writing them up. I do want them to be used, but with the caution that's always applied to them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suomi

Separate section in case it gets lost.

RP, I don't see what you're saying:

1. "We could find no monkey who had any defense against it", and "Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged" and "a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression" (Suomi to Blum)

is entirely consistent with:

2. "I have demonstrated that depressive behavior of a stable and lasting form can be induced reliably in young monkey subjects." (Suomi in a paper)

So what is the issue? Or have I missed your point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I am struggling to understand the text. it says,

Stephen J. Suomi, another of Harlow's doctoral students, placed some monkeys in the chamber in 1970 for his PhD. He wrote that he could find no monkey who had any defense against it. Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged. He concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression.

My reading of that is that "he wrote" and "concluded" those things in his PhD thesis. I can not find those sentences in his thesis, and the tone is very different from his writing, which is why I queried it. Are you saying that Blum quotes him from his thesis, or did he write it elsewhere, perhaps in a paper? Or are those actually Blum's words, perhaps paraphrasing what Suomi told her in an interview? Rockpocket 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will check whose precise words they are, whether Suomi's, or Blum's interpretation of an interview. However, it's still the case that what Suomi says in his thesis is entirely consistent with what Blum says he (elsewhere) said or wrote, namely that the chamber works, and works horrifically well. Does Suomi say anything in his PhD, or elsewhere, about the background of the monkeys making no difference? Because I think the point here was that the length of socialization period before being isolated made no difference to the outcome. I would be surprised if that wasn't mentioned in his PhD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the point (in contrast to the isolation experiments, which is what made the result of these experiments interesting from a scientific point of view). The general gist of those sentences appear consistent, but they are worded in terms that are entirely inconsistent with Suomi's writing which is why I think it is very unlikely that Suomi would have written it (as is claimed). And if Suomi didn't write it, then we should say who did. Rockpocket 07:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More barbs

"His thesis documents many other experiments in the apparatus, many of which involves "four-day periods... during which they were confined to vertical chambers", no mention of these experiments, oddly, could that be because they don't sound horrific enough?"

See what I mean?

I have asked you to stop this. If it isn't going to stop, I'll just take this off my watchlist, and the two of you can make it as POV as you like. Is that what you seriously want, RP? Are you saying I must assume good faith, but you may continue to post insults? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That comment sounds accusatory, I'd admit, and I apologize for implying that is on you. It was actually aimed less at you than the sources the article is mainly based one. When the focus of the sources is the controversy around animal experiments, then the article will be mainly about the controversy around the animal experiments. Despite what you might believe from reading the article as is, there was valid and novel scientific data from these experiments that entered the literature and are now seen as valuable contributions to the field (this according to independent secondary and tertiary sources) Ignoring these experiments because they do not sound horrific enough to ignite controversy is unbalancing the article.

I'm not saying that is your fault, or your intention, but this is the result of drawing most of the information from a single source such as Blum's book. If we are describing the experiments, lets describe the experiments rather than those highlighted for the purpose of controversy. Otherwise the article should be called Pit of Despair controversy. Rockpocket 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it.

I have relied mostly on two of Blum's books, because I have them here on my shelves. She is not pro-AR, or anti-animal-testing that I'm aware of. She interviewed the researchers themselves, and she bases her views on what they told her. You might see it as POV, but it seems to be the researchers' own views, looking back, which might be quite different from what they wrote back then, for two reasons (a) they are more mature, and (b) they are now not financially dependent on Harlow.

Although I do agree that we need more detail about the experiments, and I do want it, I would also caution that NPOV does not mean the two views of it must be presented equally. This is widely known as a horrific experiment. It is practically iconic in that sense. I wouldn't like to see a situation develop where there's an attempt to provide a fake balance, as though opinion is genuinely divided. I also wouldn't want to see primary sources being used as if they are current: we should bear in mind that what was written back then, is almost certainly not what the same writers would write now.

What would be most helpful would be descriptions of the experiments themselves. How many animals, over how long a period the device was used, when and why it was stopped, how many researchers involved, how many papers it generated, whether there are other images we can add, what the response was at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree on that. My, admittedly limited, understanding is that these experiments do push the limits of what many consider ethically justifiable (not just AR people). Most people react with visceral horror, but that is almost the point: he created an environment so extreme to elicit the most extreme response. My major concern is not that we reduce the impact of the extreme nature of the experiments, but that the horrible nature of them does not, itself, mean that the data collected in now considered scientifically worthless. Those are two different issues.

The impression I get from reading the article as it is now, is that these are widely considered both horrible and without merit, and I think that is the biggest POV issue. Again, I am not an expert on this by any means, but browsing psychology and behaviorist textbooks seems to suggest his experiments are considered instrumental in our current understanding of attachment theory. If that is the case - and I need to read and learn more before I would assert that for sure - then its an very important aspect we are missing. I have not read Blum's books, does she cover this? Rockpocket 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just jumping in here. (I haven't dealt with Wiki is some time so please excuse any mis-coding.) RP notes accurately, that Harlow is mentioned in psychology texts in association with attachment theory. There is general confusion however with what this means. This is often misconstrued (intentionally at times, I think) to perpetuate the myth that it was his and his students' work that led to changes in the way children are reared, orphan care, etc. Bowlby's 1951 report to the WHO (Maternal Care and Mental Health)concerning the care and the effects of that care on children in Europe orphaned (largely) by the war was an immediate success and went almost immediately into a second printing. Preceding Bowlby were a a handful of others who had looked at the effects of a lack of nurturing, usually in orphanages. The best known of these is Rene Spitz who coined the term anaclitic depression to describe the effects of being raised in isolation. Spitz wrote about very young children lying on mattresses that had sunk in the middle into a sort of well. The cribs and beds were isolated by sheets humg between them. The children's only contact with another person came during feeding and cleaning. (Suomi mentions the similarities between some of the monkeys' depression and anaclitic depression in his thesis.) Spizt was publishing in the late 30s (I tend to recall), and into the mid 40s, maybe even later.

In any case, Bowlby's report was not questioned as far as his observations and the needed methods of prevention of the effects of maternal deprivation; he built largely on Spitz's (and others')earlier observations. (Also, in 1952, Bowlby’s assistant, James Robertson, published the short documentary film A-Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital which may have had more effect than even Bowlby's report.) In the introduction to the 1957 second edition Bowlby writes, "While the benefits of maternal care and the dangers of depression are now generally accepted, many aspects of the matter remain controversial." (As an aside, it shouldn't be overlooked too, that Benjamin Spock's Baby and Childcare (1946-ish) was a mammoth hit and urged parents to hold, hug, and kiss their kids. It's popularity is said to be second only to the Bible.)

The effects and prevention of maternal and severe social deprivation were well accepted prior to Harlow's entry into the debate regarding the underlying reasons that children need loving care. Harlow entered the arcane debate regarding vying theories of attachment with his 1958 Nature of Love, nearly a decade after Bowlby's very successful report to WHO.

Many of those who have written about Harlow, like Blum, seem to have an interest in defending his and his students' work. It can be argued that theorizing and testing a theory is an important and laudable scientific endeavor, and it often is I think, but in the case of Harlow, it is a complete dismissal of the historical record to conclude that because of his demonstration that monkeys suffer similarly to humans, that the care of human children was improved. It was Spizt, Spock, Bowlby, and Robertson who should be remembered for the important improvements to child care, not Harlow and his students.

Finally, I don't honestly think that this history lesson will have an iota of impact on those who need to argue that Harlow et al didn't do anything wrong or that in spite of the evil nature of that work, that good did come out of it. The ever-present effort to rewrite and spin historical facts is why I seldom look at Wikipedia any longer and almost never quote from it. I don't believe that in a case like Harlow's work that his defenders will allow an accurate entry to be written. Feel free to email me privately. Rick.Bogle at geemail dot com.--Rbogle (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick, I'm sorry that you feel that way about Wikipedia, but please do not characterized editors here as, in effect, acting in bad faith. I will keep in mind the things you have pointed out as I try to sort through the literature. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I will look through Blum again. She covers lots of different researchers and their experiments, and kind of flits from one to the other, in a way I find quite annoying, because it's imprecise.

I think the point about the results being worthless is connected to the experiment being awful. The argument is that this is such an awful thing to do, and the results so obvious — namely that, as the English professor said, if you want to destroy a social animal, destroy their social ties. We don't need experiments to tell us this, and that raises questions about the kind of person who would do it.

Imagine this experiment. I want to find out what makes human beings very sad, and what happens to them when they're very sad. So I break into people's homes, and I steal their children. While there, I set up hidden cameras. Over the years, my cameras record them screaming, unable to sleep, unable to relate to other people, unable to eat properly. We see their marriages break down, their homes become dirty and uncared for, we see a few suicides. And so on. We can all fill in the dots. We also have a control group whose children I didn't steal. Some of the same things happen in that group, but nowhere near the same degree. We can therefore conclude, scientifically, that stealing people's children makes x, y, and z 300 times more likely to happen than when their children are not stolen.

This is how the pit of despair is viewed. A parody of the mad scientist, not only doing awful things, but whose assumptions are built into the experiment then churned out the other end relabelled "conclusions."

This is why I would be very interested to see any intelligent, mature scientist say, "We believed X to be the case after this experiment, and that was not something we had believed before it." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to get into a discussion of the details of the studies, but you cite very naive conclusions. I really don't mean to be rude here, but part of the PhD process one spends years learning how to devise and interpret meaningful, controlled experiments, and its no where near as simple as you suggest. The findings might seem obvious to you today, but the devil is really in the experimental detail.

For example, it was very surprising how quickly the chamber was able to invoke stable and permanent behavioural disturbances. This is in rather stark contrast to the data they obtained from their separation procedures and maternal attachment data (though this isn't obvious from the article, as it only currently describes the monkeys deficiencies, not their remarkable ability to recover).

Harlow actually published numerous papers on rehabilitation in their social isolates, and found that in certain paradigms monkeys could almost fully recover from lengthy isolations. The fact that the chamber stopped this from happening was a real unexpected finding, and inspired Suomi to devise all these experiments to combine periods social isolation interspersed with chamber incarcerations. This enabled him to tease out the specific temporal and sensory combinations that defines the critical period for what he called "stable depressive syndromes" (for example, by permitting sound communication only during the incarcerations). You might scoff, but the detailed psychosocial characterization of this animal model appears to have had some impact for the understanding of depression and the importance of social relationships during development. For example, in Depression: theories and treatments: psychological, biological, and social perspectives (1991) Ruth M. Schwartz writes, "although there is some debate in the literature as to whether the condition suffered by [Harlow's] animals is really the equivalent of human depression, there is agreement that ... the signs displayed by these baby monkeys are the equivalent of anaclitic depression in human babies." and, discussing the impact of the studies, "Harlow's work led to further formulations of theories on human depression." In an interview promoting her book Blum herself notes, "[Harlow's] work definitely did change the way that we deal with [orphans]" (though its unclear by what "work" she is referring to, she might be talking about his attachment studies) and Jessa Crispin writes (and hits the nail on the head, in my opinion) "What Harlow discovered seems blindingly obvious now, but it was quite revolutionary at the time" in her assay on loneliness. There are others that describe his studies in such terms.

So while there is consensus that Harlow may have went too far in an ethical context, there is little support for the suggestion his science was flawed (though if you have some, please let me know). I intend to add some of this to the reaction section, or perhaps write legacy section. Rockpocket 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, and I stand to be corrected, of course. I would just urge caution in being over-enamored of the PhD process, and to bear in mind that we're talking about work produced by very young people. What they see as the complexity of the process may in fact be blinding them to obvious errors, particularly logical ones. Also, it's not clear from Blum that the results from the different kinds of isolates were so radically different in terms of recovery. That may be Blum's misunderstanding, or my misreading of her, of course. But she does not give the impression that the recovery results of the pit were different in kind.

One thing I have wondered: what did Harlow see as the difference for the monkeys, when he devised the pit, between it and the one-way mirror system i.e. between this and this? What made him think the results might differ? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the true ethical problem was not in initiating the experiments, but in continuing them as long as they did. You cannot tell what we happen till you try, and as Rockpocket says, the effects proved to come much more rapidly than anticipated, but at the least, once you find out that the results are both clear and horrific, you stop. This principle was not really that clear at the time as it is now, but in this particular case, I find it very hard to imagine how anyone could have continued the experiments. I agree with Rockpocket that the article should be retitled as suggested. I think it should be possible to write a balanced article here. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, thank you for that very fair and balanced advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What Suomi said

Clarifying what Blum says Suomi says:

"As Suomi wrote, in 1970, the chamber changed every monkey who went into it for the worse. It could make abnormal monkeys pathological, make normal monkeys abnormal. The researchers couldn't find even one macaque who seemed to have any defenses against it. Indeed, the pit was a powerful reminder that even a healthy normal childhood doesn't protect against the effects of depression" (Blum 2002, p. 219).

So she is saying that Suomi wrote this in 1970.

She goes on to say that most were at least three months old (which implies that some weren't). She then talks about Harlow's attempts to make the monkeys recover, but that's where the confusion begins, because with all the experiments, some recovered and some didn't. She certainly doesn't give the impression, as you did above, that the pit monkeys were any different. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV check

It appears that Rockpocket and I feel that there are POV issues with this page that can be fixed, and that justify a POV template until they are, while SlimVirgin objects to the POV tag. I do not see any point in taking it on myself to restore the tag and continue the argument, so, instead, I am placing a POV-check tag in order to get some fresh eyes to look at the issue. The discussion begins at Title: POV concerns, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the above discussion, but I have a few comments. The relevant part of Blum 2002 is available on Google Books, and certainly paints a better picture of Harlow than this article. For instance, "One of the most guiding principles in Harry's laboratory was that there was no justification for damaging an animal unless part of the test was to learn how to fix the problem." (p. 221) Also, "common sense results" seems like selective quoting; Blum goes on to explain (through a quote by Suomi) that "the vertical chamber experiments led us to recognize that individual variation matters, that it's not just background noise." Also, if I'm not mistaken, part of the scientific method is to do experiments to confirm that "common sense" is actually true; it's not necessarily the useless experiment that this article makes it seem.

I'm also a little confused about what this article is supposed to be about. Approximately a third of it, the whole "background" section, is about his other experiments, which, from the limited reading I've done, seem just as important as the vertical chamber. It seems to me that this should be an article about his monkey experiments in general, with perhaps a section about each one and then sections about general conclusions and reactions.

Finally, if this topic is kept separate, shouldn't the article be at vertical chamber? "Pit of despair" is simply a nickname that Harlow had for it, which is not used much in the literature: [9][10]

I have no background in psychology; I hope that someone with one can work on improving this. --NE2 08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NE2, when Blum talked about "common sense results," she meant precisely "the vertical chamber experiments led us to recognize that individual variation matters, that it's not just background noise." What happened is that some monkeys recovered a little, some not at all, and none completely, and that it was not possible to say what caused the difference. In other words, it depends on the individual. Blum's point is that this could have been easily predicted. As for name, "pit of despair" and Harlow get around 63,000 hits, and "vertical chamber" and Harlow, under 2,000. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that "Pit of despair" should stay as the title of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But couldn't it have just as easily been predicted that none would recover? We need to see what psychologists say about the conclusions and not make guesses that make the experiment seem like a useless crime.

As for the article title, you're doing the wrong search. I gave you a search of books - you know, reliable sources. --NE2 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You would only predict that if you don't think one monkey differs from another. Slim is not making guesses though: she's paraphrasing a source. If you have other sources, you need to introduce material from them, not object to what is written on the basis that there might be some other source that says something to your taste. It's certainly not incumbent on Slim to provide your argument for you. Grace Note (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's been about a week since I replaced the POV tag with the POV-check tag. In that time, four editors who were not previously involved in this discussion have commented here. Rbogle and Grace Note have expressed support for the page in something like its present form. DGG and NE2 have explained concerns that POV issues do, in fact, exist at present. Clearly, editors are not all in agreement, but given that DGG, NE2, RockPocket, and I have all expressed similar concerns about POV, I think it is undeniable that there are editors who have these concerns, and it is not simply a matter of one editor feeling that way. I note that WP:NPOV dispute says:

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I couldn't have said it better myself. I think, therefore, that the POV-check has performed its function. I am going to change it back now to a POV template. As I have said previously, I think it is necessary to (a) add more balanced information about the scientific influence of Harlow's study (no whitewash, just both sides!), and (b) moderate the prosecutorial tone of the writing. I note that some other editors (but not me, currently) also have concerns about the title; I will leave it to them to address those concerns if they wish. I assure the other editors that I am working on researching the edits I propose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough now. These tags are just a way to diminish the value of articles like this. Post solid reasons for tagging the article or desist from tagging it. It's an excellent article that fairly covers a subject I knew nothing about before stumbling on it. Slim has bent over backwards to accommodate you and it's enough now. Post solid reasons for tagging this article -- and the title is not a solid reason: it's what the guy himself called it and it's clearly what a lay reader might search for -- or give it up. It's okay to have a POV but I think Slim has been considerate of yours to a point that no more is actually needed. Back it up or give it up. Grace Note (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you say here, is that you are completely disregarding the facts. Taking your statements in order: I'm sorry that you feel that the value of the page is diminished by the tag, but that is not the intention, and it is not what policy says about them. Not only I, but RockPocket, NE2, and DGG have posted solid and specific reasons for the tag. The fact that you and SlimVirgin pretend that we have not done so does not make it true. You have every right to your personal opinion that the page is excellent, but you also have a responsibility to work with the fact that other editors disagree with you. You are repeating the incorrect statement that I am objecting to the title, which only shows that you have either not read the talk here, or are pretending not to understand it. It is other editors, not me, who object to the title at this time, and they have stated their reasons. Your framing of the interactions here as other editors being very nice to me while I take unreasonable positions is completely untrue. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Tryptofish's repeated addition of a POV tag, which she has been adding since May, is inappropriate. The POV tag is meant to be used as a last resort, when all else has failed. In this case, it is being added because Tryptofish doesn't like the article, but can't be bothered to add anything that would improve it. There are lots of articles on WP that I would like to improve if I had time, but I can't go around slapping a POV tag on them all.

WP:NPOV dispute says:

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

No one is preventing Tryptofish from adding material to balance the article out, if she feels it needs that. All that is being asked is that she expand the article, and not remove material already in place. But it seems that all she wants is for the POV tag to be permanently in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are clearly a personal attack against me, and bespeak the weakness, on the merits, of your argument on content. "Last resort": Actually, it's you who edit wars against anything that even remotely challenges your POV biases, and it's only you who keeps reverting the tag. "Can't be bothered": personal attack, and I have made it very clear that I am working on it. Wikipedia is a volunteer enterprise, and you have no right to decide unilaterally when enough time has elapsed. "Must address the issues on the talk page": I did, above, but you pretend that I did not. And RockPocket, NE2, and DGG, have also supported that. "All 'she' wants": personal attack. All you have to do is read my explanation at the end of the POV-check section just above, and you will see that I am acting appropriately, and you are acting out of policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You must add material from reliable, secondary sources to address any imbalance you perceive, or you must remove the tag. You first added the tag in May. That's four months you've had to start adding material, and you've said you have easy access to the sources. So why the delay? If it's because you have no time at present, as you said above, please remove the tag. You can't simply spray graffiti on an article until you decide you have time to clean it up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SV asked me to take a look. I fully sympathize with SV that getting Wikipedia articles improved can be a frustrating process. But the NPOV tag is fair. The very title of this article is non-neutral, and implies a (possibly-deserved) moral condemnation. That it was used as a nickname for the project does not excuse it. That the scientist himself used it does not excuse it either--he can have a sardonic POV of his work, or even show his awareness of his presumably underlying sadism, but it does not mean we should. The emphasis on the apparatus rather than the experiment is non neutral. The use of a long quote in the lede paragraph is ordinarily considered inappropriate & appears non-neutral. I would accordingly have added the tag of my own accord had I encountered this article independently. The quote given from NPOV dispute says that one must give reasons for why the problem exists, not that one must necessarily solve the problem in the article. Drive by tagging is adding a tag, and not entering into a discussion of the reasons. The reasons here have been adequately given by several people, and there is no point in pretending they do not exist. Until they are addressed to the consensus of the people speaking here, the tag should remain. There is no point in setting deadlines--SV does not work that way; rather we discuss and work until it is satisfactory, however long it may take, although If it proves impossible to write a balanced article here, it should be merged. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, DGG, you would agree to removal of the tag if:

1. The title were changed.
2. The quote in the lead were removed and paraphrased.

Is there anything else? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

SV asked DGG at his talk to expand upon his views here, and he did. What he said is perfectly clear, and does not require further quizzing. It is absolutely clear that there is a lack of consensus to remove the tag. Furthermore, it is not a question of negotiating one-on-one with any one editor what changes that single editor favors. For example, I am not prepared to agree with DGG that the title needs to change; indeed, I lean towards agreeing with SV that it may be better to retain the present title on the grounds that the use of the device and the consequent issues that arise, rather than the technical features of the device itself, are what makes the subject notable. And there are other editors who have POV concerns that have been clearly described here, and these concerns include the need for further information about the ways in which the science has been interpreted and applied subsequently. The point is that there is still a process of editing and discussion that needs to go forward, before we can reach consensus that NPOV has been achieved. It will be easier to get on with that if SV would desist from warring over whether the process should even exist. (By the way, it may be useful to repeat that the tag does not mean that POV does exist, only that editors have explained concerns that they believe it does. A corollary of that is that none of the arguments about the page are a personal criticism of SV. This is about the page, not the editors, no need to take it personally.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not changing the title. It's what a lay reader would search for. You need to state your concerns clearly and we'll go from there. But what you are not going to do is obstruct the construction of a decent article because you want to push a POV. The POV tag is intended to address imbalance in POV, not to signal that some interested editors have one. Grace Note (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are addressing that comment to me, then you really should have taken the time to read what I just said. Did I say we should change the title? Did I, as well as DGG, NE2, and RockPocket, not state our concerns clearly? You are apparently claiming that I, DGG, NE2, and RockPocket are "[obstructing] the construction of a decent article because [we] want to push a POV." That is a personal attack without factual basis, and you need to desist from that immediately. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

as for the POV tag, I think it would require a rather extensive rewriting. whether his experiments are immoral must be left for the reader to judge, not concluded in the article. I recognize that given some of the statements he made about his own work, the reader will probably come to a particular conclusion about his methods and possibly his motives, but should be left to do so unaided. Some explicit information to the extent and the way the work has been subsequently cited would help. It does need to be said that his initial experiments were widely considered as a major new contribution--I recall a quite positive article on the surrogate mother experiments in Scientific American. SV, you might consider doing this as WP:writing for the enemy--make the best defense of him that you can, & integrate this into the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting experiment descriptions

Under the "background" heading, in the third paragraph, it is said that baby monkies were placed in the cages soon after birth. The cage is also described to have a one-way mirror.

Then, in the "vertical chamber apparatus" section, second paragraph, the monkies placed in the cage are said to be three months old and already bonded with other, and no mention of the mirror is made on the cages, which I would assume would be more important in this section, since the title of the section gives the impression that the article is actually describing the chamber. These inconsistencies make the article somewhat confusing. Did multiple experiments take place, with different cages and using monkies of different ages, or was it just one experiment, and are the inconsistencies to blame for creating that perception? Biglulu (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are very good questions, and I'm not sure of the answer. As the above (and now rather long-past) discussions show, this page used to be a POV battleground, and there may just be some instances of inaccurate writing arising from that time period. I'd welcome anyone looking into the source material and updating what the page says. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Main photo

Why does the photo show a rat when the subjects of the experiments described are monkeys? Unless a pic of a rat is some sort of scientific shorthand for experiments involving any kind of animal (which itself is suspect), I think the photo should be deleted and/or replaced.

In the "Disturbing" section of the talk page, some people express a desire for a warning. It occurred to me that the photo is almost the opposite, given that people tend to have more sympathy for primates than rodents. (This is not my main point, just a thought.) Yeltommo (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The image at the top is not the 'main' photo, it is the default photo that is used in the infobox for 'animal testing'. Anastrophe (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)