Hello, We are the borderland system ^_^ Our username is mostly a joke or however you would like to take it. I am the host named Booth. We use the pronouns he/they or any masc / neu terms. You can call all of us booth or when you don't know who is fronting that is fine with us. I will be using the account mostly sometimes our alters will hop on and sign off using an emoij. I am anti-censorship, anti-harassment, anti radqueer, pro-para and pro mogai + contradictory labels. you can always ask me to clarify my stances ^_^ !! Anyways thats all I got for now, more to come soon ! ( I DO NOT SUPPORT PRO C )
we have no dni but just to let you know I kin minsu and yume with towa ^_^ !!
I saw you comment on one of my posts, referring to this source, and wanted to look into it, but.. I fail to see how this proves that endos exist?
Your own source (focusing on the ICD-11, since you provided the exact link) says that childhood trauma is the cause of CDDs. It disproves endos, but there are (admittedly) things that endos may misinterpret as “proof”, courtesy of confirmation bias and maybe a bit of miscommunication:
The text uses flexible language. For example, saying “commonly associated with childhood trauma” instead of an overt “caused by childhood trauma”. However, the rest of text also repeatedly refers back to childhood trauma as the cause / contributing factor of CDDs (DID, OSDD(-1), & PDID). This flexibility doesn’t necessarily mean support, and there are other reasons the author(s) may have decided to use this language. The most notable: psychology isn’t a field where professionals can guarantee cause-and-effect relationships (without traumatizing children for the sake of science), and, if your trauma disorder causes you to not remember your trauma, such flexibility in language might be needed for professionals to properly care for their patients. Think about it like this: diagnosis gives you a foundation for further treatment plans, disorder-specific resources, coping skills, etc., but using firm/inflexible language may make it harder for professionals to actually provide that without forcing the patient to retraumatize themself by digging up their trauma too early, before they’re prepared (which is why trauma isn’t usually in the diagnostic criteria). Diagnosis is the first step in preparing you. Don’t get me wrong: word choice is important, it just isn’t standalone proof and can have a variety of reasons.
The text does mention “spiritual practices involving possession” (like mediums), but also says that these cannot count toward the diagnosis of CDDs. There’s not much else to say. It doesn’t confirm or deny that spiritual plurality is a thing (because that’s outside the scope of psychiatry and not their area of focus), it just says “this is a thing that some believe, but these feelings of possession aren’t the same as that with CDDs. Do not use it as proof of a CDD because if it’s not disordered (in this case, involuntarily hurting your quality of life), it’s not a disorder. Spiritual practices aren’t disordered”. It’s likely just there to stop racists and “religiously-biased” professionals from using CDDs/mental disorders against religious/spiritual minorities.
The text does mention that culture/community can influence both the presentation and development of CDDs, but it’s not actually saying that these things can cause CDDs. It’s saying that culture can increase a child’s odds of relying on dissociative trauma responses and influence how that dissociation “feels” to the patient (i.e., if your culture depicts dissociation as being weighed down/chained up, you’re more likely to feel your dissociation that way; if your culture depicts dissociation as a floaty/“in the clouds” feeling, then you’re more likely to feel dissociation that way). Neither of these are proof of nontraumagenic systemhood or plurality, because trauma is still required for this conversation. This also feeds into a bigger problem that endos have: they don’t understand the distance between “influence” and causation.
To talk about that point more, another thing I’m sure endos would try using is the mention that CDDs aren’t the only disorders that cause identity alteration, and that these other disorders can “influence” CDDs. Again: not causation. I partially blame “-genic” language for this, since “origin” can refer to both influence and cause, so they seem to assume, by extension, that influence = cause.. but that isn’t really true. What the text means is that the disorders just have symptom overlap, which can make them hard to distinguish from each other. These disorders may or may not be easily mistaken for each other, but when they co-exist the CDD and other disorder(s) will essentially wrap around each other and form a rope. This rope has properties of every disorder involved, and some parts are easier to distinguish than others, but then you find parts where you can’t tell what stand it originally belonged to. BPD and OSDD(-1)’s “lack of self” may influence each other, but they don’t cause the other. On another note, ADHD and DID may influence each other’s forgetfulness, and it may be hard to tell if the momentary disruption in attention was from the ADHD or DID, but neither caused each other. So on and so forth. Both may be origins of the symptoms, and symptom holders can blur the lines between “origin”, but ultimately they are separate things. That’s what the section is focused on.
Finally, the text likes saying stuff like “PDID can develop at any time” (paraphrased), but it also refers back to childhood trauma, in the exact same sentence. I think it’s intending to convey something akin to COVID incubation periods: the disorder and its symptoms may lie dormant for years, even until late adulthood, but the cause can still be linked back to childhood trauma. So, that’s also not proof of endos (or even CDDs developing as a result of “adulthood” trauma, instead of childhood trauma).
I’m sure there’s more things you can misinterpret, if you really want to nitpick every single sentence, but it all kinda comes back around to “is this actually what the text is saying, or is this what you want it to say?”
(This also what I meant by the “endos are like flat earthers” post you commented on — they can pull out sources, and I’ve seen flat earthers try proving their point with real experiments and research, but the issue is that they completely ignore counter evidence, even when their own experiments and research disprove their point. It’s not just about the presence of evidence for endos, like your comment initially implied, it’s also about its credibility, reliability, and whether the source actually claims what endos think it does. I think these sources demonstrate this exact thing: it’s only proof for endos if you’re misinterpreting it. When you know a bit about the actual psychology at play, the argument completely falls apart.)
I actually just went to the ICD-11 website and searched the dissociative identity disorder criteria for you! Nowhere does it say plurality does not require a CDD, or that plurality does not require trauma. I'll put in the relevant screenshots for you that I believe you are referencing.
These are the first two pages that dicuss DID. I'm assuming you are talking about the section, "boundary with normality (threshold)", yes? Let me write it out for you here.
"The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g. as experienced by "mediums" or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners), the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive, and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder should not be assigned in these cases."
Because you obviously didn't understand any of this (otherwise you wouldn't cite this as your source), I'll break it down for you. "The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder" is NOT the end of the paragraph. It goes on to explain that in cases such as spirituality, the presence of personality states is not disordered. Therefore, DID is not a diagnosable disorder.
Absolutely NOWHERE does it say plurality without trauma is a thing. In mediumship, for example, a medium doesn't believe that there are multiple alters in their brain. They believe that there is a spirit or outside source speaking THROUGH their body.
Essentially, if you ARE using this as a source to say plurality exists without trauma, you are comparing the endogenic experience to mediumship. The issue is, endogenics actually don't compare themselves to that. They claim that they have ALTERS without TRAUMA. As you can see, these are two very different circumstances.
And before anyone comes at me about the section "developmental presentations", the ONLY REASON the quote says "Onset of dissociative identity disorder is most commonly associated with traumatic experiences" and not that trauma is THE ONLY WAY is because the testing would be unethical.
1. You can't purposefully traumatize a group of children repeatedly.
2. Even if you could, not all experiences of trauma causes DID.
3. The threshold of trauma is different for every child, and trying to find a specific trauma causing DID would be entirely outrageous.
Before you come into my asks ANONYMOUSLY with some bullshit "proof" that you think makes you look smart, look at your proof first. Read it thoroughly. Because I AM going to read your proof and I AM going to debunk it. Lol.
dormancy and fusion are normal parts of systemhood and should not be feared as much as they are.
this isn't an original thought, I know, but clearly people keep forgetting it. dormancy and fusion are not "death" and should not be viewed as such. they're signs of healing. they're signs of recovery.
and why do so many genuine systems fear it or feel the need to censor talk around it? endogenic rhetoric. endos always focus on the alters part of the disorder, so of course they prioritize having alters, and losing that is like losing a loved one to them.
the thing is, in regards to endos, they never had them to begin with. for them, there's nothing to lose.
I understand dormancy can be scary. fusion can feel depressing if you were close to the alter who fused. but ultimately it's a good thing.
alters are not natural. I cannot emphasize this enough. we are not meant to exist. if we were not traumatized as a child, I would not exist. I would not be writing this post.
dormancy and fusion are signs of healing. we need to start treating it as a good thing instead of the scariest thing you've ever heard of.
Sysmeds are fakeclaiming traumagenic systems again...
Sometimes, I wonder if the reason sysmeds will censor the names on posts isn't so much about protecting their victims as it is preventing people from fact checking them.
It wasn't hard to find the original post though.
And from there, it wasn't hard to find them talking about being mixed origin and specifically traumagenic.
And the thing Susie is fakeclaiming for is blending. It's a common experiences a lot of CDD systems suffer from.
This is why CDD communities will never be safe as long as they allow sysmeds like anti-endo-Susie.
Sysmeds do not care about protecting traumagenic or CDD systems. They're animals driven solely by hate, and will happily fakeclaim and attack other traumagenic systems just to advance their hateful agenda.
Just to further drive the point home about how abhorrent and ableist sysmeds are, let's run an experiment!
Let's see what happens when you inform some of the sysmeds who liked or reblogged the post that the system they're fakeclaiming is a partially-traumagenic system!
Reading the stories of ex-radqueers and ex pro-endos is heartbreaking. So much pain, so much misinformation, so much stunted progress. It truly proves just how damagining these communities are beyond just facts.
For anybody reading that has been harmed in these communties, I am so deeply sorry for you, I hope you are making progress now. Please know that you are loved, and that we all support you. Any past choice you might have made in those communities is not indicative of who you are, or who you will ever be. Change is possible, especially after all of the manipulation and harm that was being done. Leaving is the first and biggest step — we are all proud of you.
We had an alter who used to be pro-endo and pro-radqueer.
These communities seem innocent enough at first glance, when you first enter them. However as soon as you disagree with something, they get extremely hostile. Or even if one or more of your other alters disagree with something while you hold the same views as them.
This alter of ours, obviously in a majority anti-endo system, hadn’t disclosed the stance of the rest of us because that would make it impossible to make friends. One time, quite recently, he was in crisis and reached out to them. It was related to our OCD, and he had, in his desperation for reassurance, used AI for the first and only time to check for a fabric stain he had already spent over 30 minutes obsessively cleaning. He said he felt horrible about it, that he hated himself for it but he wasn’t thinking clearly and was having a panic attack.
He proceeded to get insulted. He got called scum, a troglodyte and got told that he directly caused the death of tons of people. That he was a horrible person.
They started to use our personality disorders (ASPD, NPD, BPD) against him, saying they doubted he ever considered them his friends at all.
Then, apparently one of those people, the one doing most of the insulting, had found our shared system blog. Due to most of us being anti-endo, the blog was also anti-endo. He had tried to explain that that blog was only for the majority, not for him due to his differing opinions. He didn’t get a chance to explain himself, that he had his own blog free of syscourse and didn’t engage with our anti-endo blogs, and immediately got called a sysmed. The insults only got worse after that.
Already being in crisis, he only got worse. We’re lucky that we’re in a psychiatric facility, if not, things could have ended a lot worse, potentially fatal. Our OCD has worsened significantly since that day, and we spend over 6 hours every day engaging in compulsions where before it was only 2-3.
We ended up seizing for multiple hours, and have formed a handful of new alters from that interaction as well.
Needless to say, he is now anti-endo and anti-radqueer.
As harmless as these communities may look when you do everything right by their standards, it only takes one small thing until you’re verbally assaulted, harassed and shunned.
Radnormal is a movement directly opposed to radqueers.
(link to coining post)
There are some people (like me, Im a bit biased) that take issue with the term due to multiple different reasons. I've seen criticism against the name, saying that it comes off weird, with some people saying it comes off as queer phobic and others ableist.
My issues with it is, the stance says it's against harassment, but fully endorse and support harassing "predators" "pedophiles", etc. Anyone can have a completely different definition of what a "predator" is. Supporting harassment period is not okay in our book, let alone endorsing harassment against "predators", of which the community largely thinks of ANY paraphile as.
Which is not at all something we personally want to support. The creator SAYS that they understand that not all paraphiles are horrible people, but they continue to harm ALL paraphiles with their community making fun of and condemning paraphilias in general. It's not a community we personally want to be a part of, but we understand the sentiment of being against radqueers.
I agree with your analysis. The person who started it (shelix?) says that they're also a paraphile which... makes it seem they're painting themselves as good while other recovering/non-touch paraphiles are being attacked by the radnormal community.
While I myself may take issue with some paraphiles, I also understand that it's (usually) trauma based so.... going after already traumatized people by labeling them as "predators" when they've never done anything and are (if affordable) in therapy to fight their urges, just seems sleazy to me.
Adding onto this... they also don't... really seem to care about ex-radqueers who are trying to fix themselves because they realized how fucked the community was and are trying to heal from (likely) being groomed into becoming that way.
The "movement" seems to give very little grace to anyone trying to fix themselves because that's kinda what people tend to do. To grow, to change, to heal and to try to make things better and atone for things they may have done/said due to being in the community.
Idk, it just seems like another fad to me that'll likely die out in a year or so because they're behaving like the community they're opposing rather than just... idk using that handy little button for blocking.
YES, EXACTLY- a whole healing lot of people have been talking about THAT being their issue with the radnormal movement, it's seems to be anti recovery in the fact that it doesn't care whether a paraphile or radqueer is trying to get better, they care more about making sure everyone knows XYZ is wrong.
There are a whole shit on of paraphiles and radqueers that are trying really hard to recover, and I can't imagine seeing this community condemn ALL of them like this is a very bug motivator to continue trying.
We will always support radqueers and paraphiles trying to get better, and it seems like not being around or near the radnormal movement is the way to do that.
It honestly reminds me more of the old furry beware pages on Facebook back in like... The 2010s that were everywhere.
No one was allowed to improve, no one was allowed to change no one was allowed to learn.
I thought radnormal would be a good thing when it first started, but it's just devolved into a shit show that attacks anyone who they deem "evil", regardless of if the person at the point of the attack has changed.
♡ - Hello I'd like to speak on this topic for those asking what being a polymind is! When looking at info you may see people saying its just "endogenic logic rebranded" but if you look deeper its not!
Endogenic logic is the idea that one can form a system, or different "personalities" in your head that resemble a CDD system [one caused by DID, OSDD, P-DID etc]. Or that non CDDs can cause systemhood. These claims are FALSE! Only CDDs can cause "plurality" that resemble or act like a CDD system.
Polymindence is seeing your subpersonalities as seperate people [when realistically they are not!]. It's commonly used as a coping mechanism in people with disorders that cause identity confusion [such as BPD] but may not be systems entirely. It is potentially dangerous and not something to reccomend to others without knowing the dangers of it! "Becoming" a polymind can lead to worse identity confusion, dissociation/derealization and sometimes delusions/psychosis. The term Polymindence was for people who saw their subpersonalities as seperate people BEFORE learning what the label was, and needed a way to label their expirience.
Polyminded people are SINGLETS, and in system spaces they are singlets first. They may use the label "plural" because of seeing themselves as multiple people, that plurality is NOT the same as plurality in a systemhood way and I'm personally neutral on Polyminds using the term.
Polymindence is not a disability, it is a coping mechanism.
They are fine as long as they stay out of system-only spaces in my opinion! If a space welcomes singlets they can join as well.
It is harmful to include them in endogenic terms because a lot of them aren't trying to copy systems and just want a label for their coping mechanism! If they don't invade system spaces and don't advocate for the demedicalization of CDDs and don't claim that its a disorder, they are fine.
Please ask questions about this to me if you'd like! I used to identify with the label before figuring out I had P-DID and I've done a lot of research.
[USERBOX TEXT - This user has no DNI ♡ Stances in pinned]
no, we don't take posts down. anyone asking will be blocked. these are not being posted as "inspiration" it's because it's funny to us. everything that has been posted was publicly accessible so maybe you should be more wary of sharing things to the public if this offends you. thank you and good night.
how do you find peoples decorated rentries funny ? Why are we mocking random strangers decorated rentries ? am i missing something or are yall just weird
I mean, you DON'T need trauma to be a system... I think there's an ample amount of professionals who have confirmed plurality existing outside of trauma... but becoming distressed and disoriented when you hear about grooming is a trauma response.
Has Shelix ever even claimed to not be traumatized?
I've never seen that, and it has specifically mentioned being a grooming victim. Maybe the grooming was when it was past the age DID develops, but this reads a lot like saying that trauma wasn't bad enough to cause a dissociative disorder.
I also think it's worth noting that even if the grooming did take place later, most groomers don't target well-adjusted healthy children in safe supportive environments with loving parents. Most of the time, they select victims who are already abused or neglected. People who feel hopeless and are desperate for an escape.
I won't say for sure this applies in this case, because I don't want to pretend to know somebody's personal background. But statistically, grooming victims are going to be more likely to have been abused prior to being groomed.
One of these days Shelix, you'll put together why you experience the dissociation...
And why you've felt like there are multiple people inside your head...
And why you feel so personally offended at the existence of polyminds...
Every system around you can tell you're in denial.
Someday, it will be you looking back on posts like this, talking about how stupid you were:
And yes, I know, trying to crack a plural egg early can be dangerous, lead to more denial, or syscovery when you're not ready for it, blah, blah, blah.
But that's the reason I'm the one saying this instead of any of your system friends!
I don't care about your mental health or wellbeing in the slightest!
Assuming someone is a system based on the fact that they said "slightly disoriented" is really fucking weird. That's a minor first of all and second of all you need deep dissociation to be a system and to get deep dissociation you need a trauma so therefore they cannot be a system.
Did the teen say they were perpetrating the crimes aligned with their paraphilia? Such as assaulting an animal/child younger than them, desecrating a body, or having an inappropriate relationship with a relative? Those are the crimes, not the paraphilia in of itself
Still, admitting to having a paraphilia is something that one should tell their diary or a mental health professional, not a bunch of strangers on the internet. Admitting to paraphilias on the internet is how people get recruited into cults and they end up like Jeffrey Dahmer or that guy from Cuba (his alias is Woof; I forget his real name) who killed a dog and raped her.
There are necro/zoo/pedo cults all over social media and it’s really disturbing. It’s like the Satanic Panic all over again except the 80s didn’t have internet (if you don’t know what that is, it’s when Satanic cults allegedly committed pedophilia against children in daycares. It’s why Sesame Street decided to make Snuffy real instead of an imaginary friend, out of fear that children wouldn’t be believed if they admitted to being molested).
Big 3s need to be locked up. If they act on their thoughts, then they need to be executed.
I’ve read and watched enough true crime to know that people who commit these atrocities never recover.
You’re dodging my question. Did the teen admit to any crimes, yes or no? That is all I asked of you.
If you were worried about this teen getting into such cults, why call them vile? Why act like they were not a child reaching out for help, but a piece of scum destined for hell?
If all “Big 3’s” need to be locked up for everyone else’s safety, whether or not they’re taking steps to stop their thoughts, what of those with violent thoughts they’d never act on, or are getting help for stopping? Are they still destined to become dangerous serial killers because they thought of killing? What of those with intrusive thoughts? Are they destined to follow through with those thoughts?
I’m aware people who are affected by these crimes never/have trouble recovering. But, (and this is a tad repeat of my second point) if you are afraid of the teen committing these crimes, why push them away, where they could feel like the only people who’d listen are people such as radqueers or those in the cults you speak of, where the teen in question may be harmed by any adults around them or convinced they should act on their thoughts? If you want to prevent that, why condemn the teen?
as an anti endo does this source > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780122678059500183 from 2001 really prove that endo exists ? richard in this books states did do they exist
here is the part that he says it https://files.catbox.moe/if44bj.pnj
I got another ask about this, but it was a screenshot from [THE ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED].. Also, I am unable to view your catbox link.
I pulled a few strings and FINALLY managed to get my hands on the article itself and archived it for you guys to read on your own. Let's debunk it together because you cannot make a claim with one tiny bit of the source itself and expect others to believe it.
WORD COUNT: 1,180 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 5 MIN
The evidence that was cited is a single sentence from a chapter by Richard Kluft on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman (2001).
"It is unclear whether this reflects problems with the instrument or the diagnostic criteria, whether there are nonpathological endogenous forms of dissociative identity disorder, or whether patients remaining completely amnestic for childhood abuse were less symptomatic."
Page 199, A. Epidemiology
Some people interpret this as Kluft affirming the existence of endogenic systems. However, this interpretation does not hold up when the statement is examined in its full context.
The statement was speculation, not a conclusion. The most important thing to note is that Kluft was not presenting a finding. He was discussing the results of a population survey conducted by Ross and colleagues that appeared to identify more individuals meeting criteria for DID than expected.
Rather than claiming to know why this discrepancy existed, Kluft explicitly stated that the reason was unclear. He then listed several possible explanations:
- Problems with the diagnostic instrument.
- Problems with the diagnostic criteria.
- The possibility of nonpathological forms of DID.
- The possibility that some individuals remained amnestic for childhood abuse and therefore appeared less symptomatic.
In other words, Kluft was offering hypotheses, not conclusions. This contrast matters. When a researcher says that several explanations are possible, they are not endorsing any one of them as fact. To cite this sentence as proof that endogenic systems exist requires ignoring the fact that Kluft himself stated that the issue was unresolved.
The most important thing here is that the rest of the chapter supports a trauma-based model!
The broader context of the chapter makes the interpretation even more difficult to sustain. Immediately after discussing prevalence, Kluft turns to the question of etiology. There, he repeatedly describes DID as developing in children who are overwhelmed by experiences they cannot psychologically manage.
He proceeded to write the following:
"Kluft's four-factor theory holds that dissociative identity disorder occurs in (factor 1) a dissociation prone child (a biological capacity) who experiences (factor 2) overwhelming stressors that cannot be managed with nondissociative defenses.
While child abuse is the most frequent stressor in North American studies, this may not be universally the case. Exposure to death, vicarious traumatization (by witnessing the intentional or accidental death or mistreatment of others), the loss of significant persons, cultural dislocation, dysfunctional family pressures (often in the
context of divorce), childhood illness and injury, and repeated childhood surgeries have been cited as instrumental overwhelming stressors as well.
The child makes use of (factor 3) various shaping influences and substrates to form the kernel of the various alters. These may include life experiences and crucial persons in the child's life space via introjection, internalization, and identification), imaginary companionship, developmental lines, extrinsic interpersonal influences from childhood (encouragement of role-playing and acting, contradictory caretaker demands or reinforcement systems, or identification with a dissociative parent) and from contemporary sources (previous therapy, the media and literature, errors in technique, autohypnotic coping).
Finally, the situation is reinforced by (factor 4) the inadequate provision of stimulus barriers and restorative experiences by significant others. This approach to etiology is consistent with clinical experience."
Page 199-201, B. Etiology
Kluft further notes that studies consistently found histories of abuse among the overwhelming majority of DID patients. He cites research reporting childhood abuse histories in as many as 97–98% of cases and documented abuse in the vast majority of investigated patients.
Far from arguing that DID commonly arises without trauma, the chapter presents childhood trauma and overwhelming stress as the central framework for understanding the disorder.
If Kluft truly believed that non-traumatic DID was an established phenomenon, one would expect that position to be reflected consistently throughout the chapter's discussion of etiology. Instead, the opposite is true.
Another common problem with this claim is that it projects modern internet terminology backward onto a text written in 2001.
Kluft never mentions endogenic systems, natural plurality, tulpamancy, soulbonding, median systems, non-traumagenic plurality communities. None of these concepts appear in the chapter. As a result, using this sentence as evidence that Kluft was discussing contemporary endogenic identities is historically inaccurate. At most, he was briefly entertaining a hypothetical explanation for unexpected survey results.
"Nonpathological DID" Is not the same as endogenicity either. Even if one assumes Kluft was seriously considering the possibility of nonpathological DID, this still would not automatically support modern endogenic claims. The discussion occurs in a section about prevalence and diagnosis. Kluft was attempting to explain why certain survey respondents appeared to meet DID criteria despite not presenting as obvious clinical cases.
One possible interpretation of his statement is that some individuals might display DID-like traits without suffering from the level of impairment typically associated with psychiatric treatment populations.
That is a very different claim from saying that individuals can naturally develop alters entirely independent of trauma, dissociation, or developmental disruption. In fact, Kluft never makes that argument anywhere in the chapter.
The Diagnostic Criteria still required dissociative symptoms too. Kluft reproduces the DSM-IV criteria for DID, which require two or more distinct identities or personality states, recurrent control of behavior by at least two of those states, and significant amnesia that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
These are not descriptions of ordinary identity variation, roleplay, imagination, or healthy multiplicity. They are clinical dissociative symptoms.
Consequently, even the phrase "nonpathological DID" creates a conceptual problem. DID is, by definition, a disorder. The presence of DID criteria implies clinically significant dissociative phenomena.
This further suggests that Kluft's remark was exploratory and tentative rather than an attempt to establish a new diagnostic category.
Throughout the text he repeatedly describes DID as a naturalistically occurring disorder. He connects its development to overwhelming childhood experiences, discusses trauma as the primary context in which DID emerges, notes the extremely high rates of documented abuse among DID patients, and supports treatment models designed around trauma processing and integration.
The chapter does not present evidence for endogenic systems. It does not establish non-traumatic DID. It does not validate modern endogenic theories.
Instead, it contains a single speculative sentence in which Kluft briefly considers several possible explanations for an unexpected survey result and explicitly states that the correct explanation is unknown.
So, here's your conclusion. The claim that Richard Kluft "proved" or "confirmed" endogenic systems in 2001 is based on a misreading of a single sentence removed from its context. The person who made this claim has stated before "I don't believe in context", so truly, can you believe someone making a claim without further context..?
Regardless, Kluft did not conclude that nonpathological endogenous forms of DID exist. He merely listed that possibility among several competing explanations for unusual survey findings and explicitly stated that the matter was unresolved.
When the remainder of the chapter is examined, Kluft's actual position becomes clear that DID is presented as a trauma-associated dissociative disorder arising in overwhelmed children, NOT as evidence for modern endogenic theories of plurality.
Remember, science is full of proposed explanations that were never supported by later evidence.
Read The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman here (SPECIFICALLY ONLY RICHARD KLUFT'S ARTICLE, NO OTHERS ARE PROVIDED)!
WORD COUNT: 14,207 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 1 HOUR, 11 MIN
