And Then Everyone Stood Up And Clapped...
You know, just because I'm not posting your username publicly doesn't mean that I didn't click it and take note of the fact that your account history doesn't go back further than May 28th.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe anything you wrote.
I don't believe you were a part of a tulpa community where everyone made tulpas of your alters and ranked them. Permanently making a person in your mind as some weird targeted bullying is not something people are going to do. I don't even believe it of the actual toxic ableist exclusionary tulpamancy servers that don't allow CDD systems. I would believe those might bully people with mental disorders in other ways... but not by making tulpas of them.
Making tulpas of real people is very much a taboo within the entire tulpa community. And this would extend to basing tulpas on other people's alters. It's just not something tulpamancers would actively do.
I can guarantee this wouldn't happen in any of the more public communities like tulpa.info or r/tulpa. Tulpa Central, the biggest tulpa Discord, is known for being ableist but from what I hear, I think they'd be much more likely to just kick you for having a dissociative disorder since CDD systems explicitly aren't allowed to join.
I can't speak on behalf of every single tulpa space out there. But I just can't see what you describe happening in any of the major spaces. Even the toxic ones.
Maybe you don't care if I find it believable though. Maybe you just want to tell a lie that will trick people who read this who aren't familiar with the culture in tulpamancy spaces, and won't understand why this would be a huge taboo.
I do want to be clear here though that even making fictives is controversial in the tulpamancy community. Some support it, many don't. But factives are practically universally agreed upon to be bad to make intentionally.
Also... what was the context for you arguing with the head of the psychology department about endogenic plurality??? How does that even come up???
Did you just stop the psychology head in the hallway to talk to them about it?
Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe the psychology head also happened to teach a class you were in.
But even still... a professor isn't going to randomly bring it up.
Were you writing a paper about endogenic systems, and then that led to the argument? But that feels like the type of context you would have included if that was the case.
Maybe if you were taking a course on abnormal psychiatry, it would come up naturally when it got to DID. But your average course on psychology will barely even touch on DID if at all.
But fine, let's pretend for a moment that this was real...
So something happens, one thing leads to another, and you're arguing with the head of the psychology department about endogenic systems for some reason...
Because like, there's a good chance you're arguing with an older person about a subject that's fairly obscure with a lot of the research into it coming out in the past decade.
And there are different forms of "arguing." There's the form of arguing where you're yelling at each other trying to be the one to talk the loudest. And then there's actual debate where you're citing sources and going back and forth on those sources.
There's a strong chance this person, despite being a psychologist, wouldn't have naturally read Transgender Mental Health by Dr. Eric Yarbrough which discusses nontraumagenic and nonpathological plurality in one chapter.
There's a good chance they haven't read Varieties of Tulpa Experiences by Dr. Samuel Veissière, a psychiatry professor at McGill University, which discusses tulpamancy and how tulpas are created. This would also be a good one to compare to the method certain evangelicals use to create a "God" in their head capable of mind voice communication and autonomy, as described in When God Talks Back by Dr. Tanya Luhrmann, a professor at Stanford University.
They hopefully would be aware of the ICD-11, but not necessarily specifically aware of the Boundary With Normality in the dissociative identity disorder section.
These and many other academic sources are ones I've cited repeatedly on this blog, and if you failed to cite these or argue your case compellingly, that seems like a you problem.
It's certainly not an issue with myself or the sources I use.
And if you believe the peer-reviewed academic sources I cite are "lies," as you put it, I expect you to make that case as well.
Because anyone can look up the papers and books I've referenced. Anyone can look up the authors and their credentials.
Anyone can look up the publishers to confirm they're reputable too. The Varieties of Tulpa Experiences was in a book published by the Oxford University Press. Transgender Mental Health by Dr. Eric Yarbrough was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.
These are real doctors publishing their works through the most esteemed and reputable publishers in the world.
And for the record... "system" is not a CDD-exclusive word...
I'm surprised in your time "trying to go into psychology," you never came across Internal Family System, pioneered by Dr. Richard Schwartz.
More than that, doctors Dolores Mosquera and Colin Ross have even discussed that some psychotic voices in non-CDD patients could be dissociated parts of a person's system.
Studies explicitly into non-disordered plurality have also taken to using the term system for non-disordered systems.
Alright! I think we're done here!
Again, I don't believe this is in good faith. I don't believe anything you told me actually happened. I doubt you were ever pro-endo.
You're just not particularly believable.
If you want to try to prove your case though, you're welcome to come argue using actual sources instead of this poorly-written fiction.
