So, we're doing a post that's nothing on an ask we've been sent or anything however it's one we feel is important to make as we've been refinding mutuals and saw something. By the time y'all see this, our DNI will even include the topic of today's discussion
Polyminds
Now before we start discussing, here's a few basic things to get out of the way. The first and biggest: Do not go harass anyone. Harassment is not something we tolerate or encourage.
The second, when we say you, it is the general you. This is not at any one person specifically, instead it is the general you.
The third one, what source we're using for this. We are using the one we've seen suggested to friends of ours who are openly anti-polymind on Tumblr, their own carrd. Now we don't typically use carrd's as information however seeing as how this is commonly suggested, we want to talk about it. Onto our discussion
What even are polyminds?
Polyminds, as defined in their carrd, is "a self-identifiable term that refers to a person that is capable of seeing their subpersonalities as unique individuals". That alone is not a bad thing, it's something that actually a lot of people do.
However, even when answering the question "What are subpersonalities?" they are explaining what a regular person does. The carrd explains it through the example of a woman who is going through her day. Waking up her kids, she becomes "the Mother". When going to work, "Ms. Executive". When coming home to the partner, "Lover".
This is what people do. The way a singlet interacts with every person is that exact thing. The difference in how you would interact with a partner, a parent, siblings, and colleagues are all completely different as that is human nature. A person is not just one face to the world, they have different aspects of who they are as a person.
In the "About" section of the carrd, they explain polymindence as "simply the ability for a person to say "oh, Lover is active right now" whilst also assigning unique identities to each of them". You, reader, may be wondering what is wrong with that. That inherently starts forcing a dissociation in a person, something that is highly harmful.
If you were to sit there and define the way you act with a child, for example, as "the Mentor", that starts you treating that part of you not as you. You become second to that stage. That is causing dissociation, even without being on purpose
That also sounds eerily like how many textbooks actively explain DID and the different alters. The glaring similarities do not end there and will be further discussed throughout this post
The About section also explains how polyminds happen. They do state in the first sentence, "all though in most cases it is entirely involuntarily". That alone is not a bad thing. The writer then discusses how it can come from maladaptive daydreaming, which is not something we will comment on. However turning and then saying "Whilst others may have been put under such intense stress over a long period of time that their subpersonalities distinguished over time due to how often they activated".
Phrasing "activation" as that for when you act different depending on who your near sounds exactly like how someone would phrase when there is a switch in a system. Acting differently depending on the situation is a totally normal and healthy thing. Acting different dealing with say your child and then your partner is a standard part of existing.
What is they're explanation for plurality/systems?
We phrased it explicitly like that since they have two different questions however we don't want to copy the carrd's format. The explanation for not being a system is that DID/OSDD (also known as systems) are mental disorders. Polyminds, however, are not. Due to, as it says and I will quote, "...functions off subpersonalities, which is something everyone has". We will not argue against that, subpersonalities is part of every single being (phrased that way specifically for alterhumans/nonhumans to be included, as they themselves will say they are not human (alterhumans/nonhumans, not polyminds))
On if they are plural, the carrd can only say it is up to the polymind. However we have an issue with that statement alone. Poly as a prefix means "many" or "several" or "multiple" and is derived from the Greek word "polys". Polymind then means many mind, several mind, or multiple mind. Plural means, from Merriam-Webster dictionary, "of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two". By the literal definition, the term "polymind" means whoever would be it would be plural. By definition
However we do have a bone to pick with part of this in the FAQ section of this carrd
Response to "How do polyminds differ from IFS?"
This carrd creator describes IFS, or Internal Family System, which is a therapy technique. It is not OSDD/DID, it is a technique used by therapists. IFS has the end goal of getting all of a person's subpersonalities to work together in harmony, something that trauma, stress, and many other factors can disrupt.
The carrd reiterates that polymind just means that someone can distinguish subpersonalities and that "...subpersonalities in polymindence do not have to get along, let alone work together harmoniously". That sentence may, in fact, cause more harm then good
A person's subpersonalities are supposed to help them function in the world. If they do not have to "get along let alone work together harmoniously", as is a direct quote, that is harmful to a person. It stops a person to function in a smooth way, since fundamental parts of a person don't work together.
The carrds acknowledgment on potential harm
This card does, thankfully, acknowledge that it can be harmful to overanalyze subpersonalities. However, they attempted to defend polyminds as "not about actively separating and distinguishing your subpersonalities, it is not about how one became polyminded. Instead, the term simply exists for those who have already distinguished their subpersonalities for any reason."
You may be thinking that doesn't sound harmful however I'm going to use an example. Systems, those with DID/OSDD, is a term to describe those with different identity states due to trauma. Notice the fact that now we have those claiming you don't need trauma at all to be a system. Polyminds have already delved into, from things we've seen when we first were learning about the meaning, people asking how to do it, discussing how to do it, acting as if it's something fun and that should be praised.
While it may not be the intention, this has already led to people purposely dissociating themselves to that point. Also, again, I will reiterate that this is something most people can do. They can recognize how they act different depending on who they're interacting with. That is why there is a common remark in media of someone going "I've only been interacting with this kind of person for so long, I forgot how to act with this situation". That's something most everyone can do, adding a specific term is not just unnecessary but many who use the term are actively pushing for people to dissociate or to claim they are automatically systems due to the ability to distinguish
Now we are about to address something that we have found to be the most key point to what we will address in our conclusion on our issues with polyminds: they, at this point, seem like nothing but another attempt at endogenic systems. We will explain more after this section.
Terms and the suspicious correlation
Terms are something that have many categories on this carrd, and we will be going through them one by one. However we will be explaining things alongside it
"Active. When a specific mind or minds are present". Or in other terms, when you act a certain way depending on the situation. Yet it sounds very similar to what many systems call "front", or when a specific alter(s) are in control of the body.
"Active-Stuck. A state where a specific mind or minds are unable to stop being active". This caused an immediate concern with us. Subpersonalities depend on what situation you are in. Unless you are unable to leave the situation or, as has happened and was even referenced earlier in the post, have been in that situation for so long it is hard to change from it at first, that shouldn't be possible. That, instead, sounds like being "front-stuck" or when an alter(s) can't leave front.
"Collective Self. An identity that most, if not all minds feel represented by." Starting with the most glaring obvious point, subpersonalities are all part of one identity. They are just different aspects of said identity, or the way someone can act like a parent, a child, a boss, an employee, a friend, all of that. There is no reason why there would be an identity that not everyone represents. However that does sound like a "collective identity", a common thing in systems where they have something like a name that many are okay with being identified as.
To continue this post we will need to in a reblog of it, since we are near the word limit. We are posting this part now and will most likely queue the rest of the reblog(s) so, please be patient. Consider this part 1
