there's this level of dissociation that goes hand in hand with daydreaming and i feel like it's something i wouldn't know how to begin explaining to somebody who's anti-endo.
maladaptive daydreaming is not inherently caused by trauma. it's considered something you use to cope with it. but for a LOT of people, and as confirmed in multiple studies, it is a dissociative disorder. there's even a level of plurality with it.
you have these people in your head, and you cant destroy them. a lot of them can feel like REAL people. you create worlds, plot lines, and you connect with these characters in a way where they slowly become their own being. their own person. how is this ANY different from being plural?
the answer is: it's really not. if you view plural as synonymous with systemhood then maybe i can see why you'd have a problem with the phrasing, but based off of the actual definitions of plural, maladaptive daydreaming fits the criteria.
the next issue that people tend to have with maladaptive daydreaming being considered plural is that maladaptive daydreaming isn't its own disorder. but something doesnt need to be a disorder for it to be significant in the mental health industry.
a common "rebuttle" of endogenic systems is that they "appropriate" other cultures, but what most people making this argument fail to realize is that, this is HOW culture works. western culture is actively affected by the cultures of other areas. do you genuinely believe that theres not a single Buddhist in america practicing tulpulmacy? that this is SOLELY a non-western phenomenon? then why is "traditional traumagenic" mentioned at all, and not JUST traumagenic?
but there are articles that talk about the importance of listening to the internet, and the words they've cultivated. something i've been told is irrelevant because "an endo made that word" IS BEING heard by therapists all across the globe, not just in america.
"the reader is reminded that culture is dynamic rather than static, meaning that just as our understanding of the online community is different today than it was twenty years ago, this will continue to shift and evolve into the future as well"
things CHANGE. research ADVANCES. and with that, we also know that maladaptive daydreaming is BEYOND VALID on the dissociative spectrum. it has ALWAYS been there, it just wasn't considered a disordered behavior before the 2000s.
on top of this, there's a study that further affirms it's place in the endogenic sphere specifically.
despite this, her brain scans showed "great activity in the ventral striatum, the part of the brain that lights up when an alcoholic is shown images of a martini. Frankly it was super strong"
this means she isn't just mind wandering. mind wandering is what people THINK daydreaming is.
"Mind wandering refers to the occurrence of thoughts that are not tied to the immediate environment—thoughts that are not related to a given task at hand"
mind wandering lights up the Default Mode Network side of the brain, the DMN. the DMN controls Autobiographical information, Memories of collection of events and facts about one's self, Self-reference, Referring to traits and descriptions of one's self.
maladaptive daydreaming has its own dissociative absorption, and it affects the brain differently than mind wandering. it's a proper form of dissociation.
and..would you look at that?? spiritual practices are mentioned. i wonder which endogenic system that reminds me of! (much love to sophie!). it's just further credence towards the fact that non-traumatic systems can exist. why else would maladaptive be on the spectrum, honestly?
trauma doesn't CAUSE maladaptive daydreaming. trauma doesnt cause dissociative absorption. they are ALL coping mechanisms as a way to deal with whatever trauma may be going on-- or it can literally be a choice in the sense that you can actively choose to get absorbed into a book, or how you choose to maladaptive daydream. you can let it interfere with your life and become debilitating and disordered (because sometimes people dont WANT to change) but this doesnt mean it's traumatic.
with all this being said, how is this not a valid presentation of plurality?