Talk:Touch starvation

Changed article rating

Hi all, I've changed the article rating to c-class. The page has received review, has over 30 sources, and covers roughly 5-10 pages of content. It needs expansion, so is not yet up to B-standard, but otherwise it seems reasonable. Let me know if you disagree, but otherwise best wishes to everyone. Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello all

Hi everyone. I've just added this page, and would appreciate any help anyone could provide in adding to the sections I've marked for expansion. If you have any questions or would like help finding sourcing, let me know. Otherwise I really do wish all of you well and I hope this info serves to help you in some way.

My regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Doubts regarding a section

Hi CSGinger14 thank you very much for the creation of this page and your work on it. I hope I've been of some help, such as by listing reference ideas. Something I'm a bit concerned about is the Kim Stenger section. I see the work hasn't been peer reviewed by a journal. It also seems, at least to my understanding, unusual and unscientific to base a scientific theory or conclusion on only one individual case/person. Surely there would have to be studies of many people before such a conclusion was formed rather than a single person? Therefore, it may be best to remove this section. There are plenty of sources we could use to expand the page in other ways. Helper201 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Helper201, I appreciate your reaching out, and even more so appreciate your assistance in improving the page. On the topic of Kim Stenger, part of the reason why a definitive conclusion can't be reached on the topic is because she's currently the only known living person with the condition. This has never been explored by scientists before, or at the very least recorded. It may seem unscientific, but I think your conclusion as to why that is draws upon assumptions rooted in topics which have a far larger body of scholarship attached to them, which isn't the case here. It isn't as if this was an issue that people elected to ignore because it wasn't credible, it's one that scholars haven't made any reasonable conclusions about because its never been studied before. I myself was a bit curious as to why no peer review had been performed as of yet, but my conclusion was that the woman can only be involved with so many experiments/tests at once, you can't do a peer review if you don't have any other person or dataset to draw conclusions/evidence from. They only have one person from whom they can ascertain data, thus developments in scholarship are entirely contingent upon her involvement

I've taken care to phrase the section in such a way that readers can note that no definitive conclusion on the topic exists. Frankly, though, I would disagree that the section should be removed, given that it has been covered by a credible news agency as well, and represents quite a fascinating case study in what life is like for a person who quite literally cannot experience touch, and thus isn't beholden to the same norms and reality as the rest of us. If you disagree, I'd be happy to discuss this further, but frankly I think there's more danger in deleting it than leaving it as it is or with slightly modified phrasing in order to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The flip-side is them not knowing about it to begin with. I wish you well, and look forward to a response.

All my best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply CSGinger14. Apologies as I can't think up much of a reply, at least at the moment, but thank you for your explanation and getting back to me and for your appreciation. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Kim Stenger section seems pointless

The study itself compares Stenger's situation to congenital deafness and blindness. Helen Keller isn't a "counter-argument" to psychological studies that link an absense of aesthetic beauty in one's surroundings to negative psychological outcomes. Why would Kim Stenger be a counter-argument to psychological studies that link an absense of human touch to negative psychological outcomes? ~2026-85487-3 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-85487-3. I'm not certain I'd call it pointless. Within the first paragraph, it's noted that [t]hough non-human therapies are thought to provide some supplemental benefit, lack of physical human contact is stated to be severely harmful to one's confidence, emotional regulation, and self image, especially during the early childhood development window.. Looked at from my perspective, it seems more so that you're challenging the assumptions of the article itself, rather than the specific case referenced here.

Additionally, this quote from the end of the abstract might serve to answer your question:

In sum, Kim upends the idea of touch as critical to developing a sense of self, secure attachment, and family bonds.

— Congenital absence of touch does not preclude normal cognitive and socioemotional development (Pubmed)

If you have additional questions or concerns you'd like to raise, feel free to respond here or on my talk page. There are additional points of site policy that are relevant here, but it doesn't seem necessary to cite them at this time. Best wishes, and thanks for your message.

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)