hello! this is my blog where i hope to study syscourse!
i am a psychology enthusiast working on a passion project where i hope to write a VERY LONG and in-depth essay on syscourse, including:
individual controversies within the subject
each side's arguments and their flaws
scientific research and its flaws
social patterns and cultural consequences
individual psychological consequences
this blog is where i want to gather data for that essay by interacting with people ON ALL SIDES [pt: on all sides] and hearing what you all have to say! (therefore, there is no DNI). stories, opinions, personal experiences, resources, anything you have to share, i want to hear it! any asks and comments may be cited/quoted anonymously [pt: cited/quoted anonymously] in my essay, unless you explicitly ask me not to. (this doesn't include posts i reblog, unless they explicitly ask me to!)
in the name of research, i will not share my own personal thoughts and opinions (aka what "side" i am on); instead, i will critique all positions as equally and thoroughly as possible. however, i do believe it is relevant to say that i am a traumagenic system myself [pt:i am a traumagenic system myself]. i probably agree with you on some things and not others, and i will likely criticize and engage with your argument without clarifying whether i agree with you or not; if you're uncomfortable with that, this blog is not for you!
THIS BLOG IS ANTI-HARASSMENT! i am seeking CIVIL DISCUSSION from all sides! i believe that harassment is ALWAYS WRONG!
DESPITE ALL OF THE ABOVE, i want to do my best to keep this blog a FRIENDLY SPACE. i will try to keep my tone positive, uplifting, supportive, validating, and/or understanding. you can share things in any tone you'd like, but i may not post the entirety of asks that are worded aggressively on this blog (but it won't affect my willingness to cite/quote you in my essay).
for my own mental health, i will likely take frequent breaks from this blog. however, i will run it on a queue as much as possible, so that it can stay going while i'm away.
my main question about endogenic plurality is the mechanisms behind it. it’s understood dissociation is the mechanism behind DID, but I don’t understand what it is for endogenics. do you have any resources about that?
i personally don't have anything; i would love to hear if anyone else has any resources, opinions, or personal experiences on the subject 👀
Dissociation. Structural dissociation is the mechanism behind the complex dissociative disorders. Structural dissociation and dissociation aren't the same thing :)
Dissociation occurs to varying degrees along a continuum, just like multiplicity. The type of dissociation often referenced in endogenic systems is absorption and depersonalisation. Though, not all endogenic systems necessarily come from a form of dissociation.
A couple pieces that might help,
A theory behind created alters
Creative writing and autonomous identities
Multiple selves
A few different reasons
A bit on absorption
Natural multiplicity in history
More stuff around creation
A less clinical view
And might have a good bit of info
But, two things: Psychology doesn't have an answer for every "why", including in dissociative disorders. And science doesn't care much about "why" if it knows it happens (a good example is the amount of medications that are used without knowing how they work)
A non-exhaustive list of academics acknowledging that plurality isn't always DID. For the sake of clarity, "plurality" refers to the experience of multiple or divided selves/identities/parts/people within one single mind/body. You can find more examples on my blog. 📝
"[E]ven within the Plural community, Plurality is a broader concept than DID, and that is understood by Plurals who claim no trauma history. Furthermore, the research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity."
Source: The online community: DID and plurality.
"The importance of understanding how multiplicity differs from clinical experiences, such as DID, is vital . . . for some people clinical criteria are essential and align to experiences, while for others a more holistic understanding is required, which allows for acceptance of non-clinical experiences."
Source: “Here’s Dissociative Identity Disorder, and we’re not that”: a constructivist grounded theory exploration of multiplicity experiences.
"Based on the findings of this review, a novel and synthesized definition of multiplicity is offered as the experience of having more than one ‘self’ in the mind or body, which can involve having different genders, ages, memories and personalities but without the assumption of the presence of distress. This experience differs from DID definitions due to the absence of amnesia, distress and impaired functioning, highlighting the variance in conceptualizations across the continuum."
Source: Conceptualizing multiplicity spectrum experiences: A systematic review and thematic synthesis
"In working with research subjects under hypnosis, we have found that individuals who show no sign of mental illness may nonetheless manifest segmented divisions in their personalities that may act like 'covert' multiple personalities. However, the boundaries that separate them from other such states are more permeable and are not necessarily maladaptive. These parts often have awareness for one another but retain their individual senses of identity."
Source: Clinical Perspectives on Multiple Personality Disorder
"Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship."
Source: Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with Previous Formulations.
"The DSM-5 (APA, 2013, p.292) states that DID involves a '[d]isruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession.' Whereas possession states can relate to DID, these states may also be more benign part of spiritual practice."
Source: The Trinity of Trauma: Ignorance, Fragility, and Control.
"Even if we restrict our focus to the 'alternate identity' type of possession, we find that its domain is quit large. It includes phenomena such as mediumship and channeling, glossolalia and non-possession types of dissociative identity disorder."
Source: Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: Past, Present, Future.
"This gives rise to the familiar symptoms of schizophrenia. In the case of delusions of thought insertion, for example, it is precisely because one part of the brain generates a thought that is representationally discontinuous with mental contents being produced elsewhere that the patient judges it to be alien, and hence disowns it. What we see here is a partial disintegration of the self, but not in the sense of the self failing to be a single thing—on the multi-track view it was never that in the first place—rather, in the sense that the many self-directed representations produced by the brain no longer hang together as a coherent system."
Source: The multiplicity of consciousness and the emergence of the self.
"[D]issociative disorders are etiologically linked to history of trauma (Dalenberg et al., 2012). Yet, dissociation is considered to range on a continuum from transient everyday experiences like daydreaming, to disintegrative attentional processes, to psychiatric disorders (Bernstein & Putnam, 1986; Myerson & Konichezy, 2009). Moreover, although the common core of dissociative disorders is alternation in consciousness, alternations in consciousness can be considered part of normative behavior (Steele, Dorahy, Van der Hart, & Nijenhuis, 2009). . . . Only a few empirical studies have explored dissociative tendencies among channelers. In these studies, the channelers were compared to people diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID). The conclusion was that in DID, dissociation is a trauma-based defense mechanism, whereas in the case of channeling the dissociation is a learned and functional use of altered states of consciousness."
Source: Dissociation and the Experience of Channeling: Narratives of Israeli Women Who Practice Channeling
"Our results and their contrast with the available data on fMRI in DIDs allows to draw the hypothesis of a continuum between healthy mind – where multiple identities may coexist at unconscious level and may sometimes emerge to the consciousness – and DIDs, where multiple personalities emerge as dissociated, ostensibly autonomous components yielding impaired functioning, subject’s loss of control and suffering."
Source: Dissociative identity as a continuum from healthy mind to psychiatric disorders: Epistemological and neurophenomenological implications approached through hypnosis
"While we recognise that dissociation is a real and adaptive response to trauma, we do not recognise that all persons experiencing plural identities are disordered. We propose that the experience of multiple self-identities is a legitimate expression of being human."
Source: ‘And we are a human being’: Coproduced reflections on person‐centred psychotherapy in plural and dissociative identity
my main question about endogenic plurality is the mechanisms behind it. it’s understood dissociation is the mechanism behind DID, but I don’t understand what it is for endogenics. do you have any resources about that?
i personally don't have anything; i would love to hear if anyone else has any resources, opinions, or personal experiences on the subject 👀
This is syscourse. If that makes you uncomfortable, scroll away.
Please do not harass me. I am not harassing anyone.
A few days to a week ago (I lose track of time very easily) I made a post that roughlt read "I talked about endos on stream and everyone was rightfully horrified"
I was then given a google doc with research compiled about endogenic systems.
I find the research scattered, self-contradicting and lacking solid sources. The claim of "no trauma systemhood" is inherently contradicting, because plurality is a neurodivergence, and neurodivergent people suffer in this society. Likewise, even if you are genetically predisposed to develop alters (i am no scientist thus i do not have an opinion in this claim) the splitting of identity during development needs a trigger. You cannot be "born" as a system because babies don't have identities.
What you are doing is gameifying and trivializing systemhood as a Fun Thing anyone can have, picking your favorite parts and discarding the hard parts. And I am right to be angry, because disabled people keep being pushed out of their own spaces by those who think our difficulties are "aesthetic".
Another thing I have been told is that endos do not claim to have CDDs (complex disassociative disorders, aka the ones that cause a split identity), and yet they use terms overlapping and/or synonyms with our disorders.
On the other hand, non-disordered systems can happen if you can manage the symptoms. It is still formed by trauma, you just will stop meeting the diagnostic criteria, but triggers can make your mental health worsen again. Thus, I think diagnosis are not end-all — they are a tool for mental health professionals to help treat and lessen distressing mental health symptoms that negatively affect your life. If you get better and you stop meeting the diagnostic criteria, that does not mean you never had the condition, and again — triggers can make your condition worsen again!! I would hope not, but it can happen! Your past is not erased by your present improvement.
If you feel like you really are a system, you have trauma. Caused directly by, or delayed from the thing(s) that happened, but still trauma. Repeated small traumatic events (C-PTSD) aren't less valid than one big traumatic event (PTSD). And I'm tired of trauma being a competition, and if you don't have "enough" you "aren't valid". By enabling a label that claims multiplicity isn't caused by trauma, you enable roleplaying of disorders.
Before you say anything,
I used to be pro-endogenic, then have changed my mind after seeing the community.
I am undiagnosed currently because of extremely long public psychology wait times (~6 months in between appointments) without the money and resources to find a psychologist who specializes in systems.
I have OSDD-1b, am monoconscious (thus the use of I/Me), with over 30 members and low dissociative barriers.
Comments are open for respectful discussion. Harassment and fallacies (eg. attacking my intelligence or appearance to discredit my points) are not welcome. If you can't keep it respectful, feel free to take a screenshot while cropping out my username to share in your own blog with your own opinions.
hi, i appreciate your post explaining your thoughts on syscourse! would you mind if i cited it anonymously in my (non-professional) research? (you can look at my pinned post for more info)
i hope you have a nice day!
- @syscourse-scientist
of course! i love what you're doing, i wish you luck.
i, the showlight, consent to my opinions and writing being screenshotted, quoted, and paraphrased in your research. you may credit me or add my opinion anonymously, and i am open to answering further questions for clarity at any point in the future.
Could i please have the links to medical studies that in your opinion prove that endogenic systems do not exist?
This is kind of a complex question. The fact that endogenics do not exist comes from the sum of all the research into how alternate identity states develop and function, so in order to get the full picture you need to do a lot of reading in a lot of different areas. There also isn't really going to be a study that overtly says "endogenic systems do not exist", because "endogenic systems" are not even close to a scientifically recognized topic because the base idea is already completely disproven by the existing research.
Your best starting point for this is going to be the studies into the etiology of DID that disprove the sociocognitive and fantasy based models of DID (which operate on remarkably similar logic to "endogenic" ideology), and also the neuroscience of DID that proves that alters and switching are inseparable from PTSD on a neurological level.
Also, before we start, just so we're perfectly clear: dissociative identity disorder is the medical name for the presence of alters. Any credible research into alters and systemhood is going to use the term "DID" or "CDD" because those are the official names for this phenomenon. They're not studying the label, they're studying systemhood. If they weren't, DID research wouldn't apply to OSDD-1 or P-DID either, but it obviously does. Therefore, the argument of "that study doesn't count because it's about DID, not endos!" isn't actually valid.
Etiology and Alter Formation
Dissociation debates: everything you know is wrong
The sociocognitive model of dissociative identity disorder: a reexamination of the evidence (not open access)
Disorganized Attachment and the Orbitofrontal Cortex as the Basis for the Development of Dissociative Identity Disorder <- this one explicit states that DID without comorbid PTSD essentially does not exist
Revisiting the etiological aspects of dissociative identity disorder: a biopsychosocial perspective
A Cross-Cultural Test of the Trauma Model of Dissociation
The Weakness of the Sociocognitive Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder
Is it trauma‐or fantasy‐based? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controls
Neuroscience of DID
“I Am Not I”: The Neuroscience of Dissociative Identity Disorder
Abnormal hippocampal morphology in dissociative identity disorder and post‐traumatic stress disorder correlates with childhood trauma and dissociative symptoms
Aiding the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder: pattern recognition study of brain biomarkers (not open access)
A systematic review of the neuroanatomy of dissociative identity disorder
Dissociative identity state-dependent working memory in dissociative identity disorder: a controlled functional magnetic resonance imaging study
Treatment of dissociative identity disorder: leveraging neurobiology to optimize success
Normal amygdala morphology in dissociative identity disorder
Hippocampal and amygdalar volumes in dissociative identity disorder
A neurostructural biomarker of dissociative amnesia: a hippocampal study in dissociative identity disorder
Neurodevelopmental origins of abnormal cortical morphology in dissociative identity disorder (not open access)
Voluntary switching between identities in dissociative identity disorder: A functional MRI case study
Dissociative Part-Dependent Resting-State Activity in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controlled fMRI Perfusion Study
Neurological Difference Between the Host and Alternate Identities of a Patient Diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder
Similar cortical but not subcortical gray matter abnormalities in women with posttraumatic stress disorder with versus without dissociative identity disorder (not open access)
Other
“Multiple Systems” versus Dissociative Identity Disorder: Life-Style or Mental Illness?
This one's interesting, because many "endos" have claimed it proves endogenic systems, but when you read it, it actually says the opposite. It states the following:
That those who claim to be "multiple" very well may in be psychosis, and that people can be end up falsely believing they have alters through social media
That many "multiples" claim to be functional yet experience profound depression and anxiety, that they deny dissociation but that alters can only form through dissociative coping and compartmentalization
That "multiples" have still experienced childhood trauma consistent with that which causes DID and have similar alter presentations to those in DID
That there is no empirical evidence suggesting "multiplicity" is separate from DID
In fact, the conclusions of the paper are that the claimed differences between multiplicity and DID "are not enough to separate multiplicity from a harmful psychological disorder", and that "for now one should not differentiate [multiple systems] from dissociative identity disorder".
The theory of structural dissociation itself
The theory of structural dissociation states that alters are highly complex ANPs and EPs, which are divisions of the self caused by structural dissociation, a psychological process that is purely post-traumatic in nature. Here's an excerpt from The Haunted Self (the main book that outlines the theory of structural dissociation of the personality) giving a basic explanation of tertiary structural dissociation, the only known process through which distinct and autonomous parts of self can exist:
I highly recommend reading the whole book to better understanding how alters form and function, and how they are inseparable from trauma. If I were to put every excerpt that talks about that, we would be here all day.
I hope this was helpful, at least as a starting point.
does anyone have any scientific/clinical anti endo resources that aren't the DSM/ICD? ideally specifically resources claiming that CDDs are the only way to experience plurality, but i'd appreciate anything. i've been struggling to find enough for my research!
Hey there! There isn’t just a singular one-and-done study that claims “there is no such thing as nontraumagenic plurality”, you kind of have to use a combination of studies on alter formation and alter structure to come to the conclusion that “oh, this wouldn’t work in a non-traumatized brain.”
The main contender for this conclusion is the theory of structural dissociation. It admittedly has its flaws, it’s not a perfect theory, however it’s the best we have so far, and I don’t think it’s useful to completely throw it out just because someone says “well I just identify this way!” This theory suggests that identity fragmentation seen in DID and OSDD has specific requirements: dissociation and trauma. Tertiary structural dissociation is theoretically equivalent to DID. In some cases OSDD may present similarly to tertiary structural dissociation, because it’s ultimately the disorder that bridges the gap between DID and CPTSD, although it’s rather a large jump. So, how could someone experience identity fragmentation similar to or the same as DID/OSDD when these specifics exist? If it is possible, it would not even remotely work the same, and that brings up the problem of sharing terms with disabled people, but I’m going to ignore that for now.
There’s also the disproval of social and fantasy-based models, many of which endos rely on for their -genic terms in regards to their alters. These models are not possible according to current research into alter formation, and in believing in such models you would be admitting to thinking DID as a diagnosis isn’t valid, since that is the main reason why those theories and models existed: to disprove DID exists.
Sources:
The Sociocognitive Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Reexamination of Evidence https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8711016/
Revisiting the Etiological Aspects of Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Biopsychosocial Perspective https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5422461/
The Weakness of the Sociocognitive Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236613969_The_Weakness_of_the_Sociocognitive_Model_of_Dissociative_Identity_Disorder
There’s also the fact that alters are a genuine physical phenomenon in the brain. Different alters, particularly EPs, will activate certain parts of the brain in response to stimuli, while others likely won’t (ANPs). It’s why alters can hold trauma memories, or why alters can have different tastes, voices, experience with a disorder, etc. The endogenic community suggests that it’s just an identity, or something that can happen naturally (I’m not really sure which one statement is most popular, I see both but they seem contradictory… which is it??) however, how can that be the case when such strong differences in the brain need dissociative barriers to even function? Even when someone with DID achieves functional multiplicity, there’s still an existing level of dissociation keeping the parts from fully fusing, so even in a “healthy” case of multiplicity, barriers still need to exist on some level.
Sources:
“I Am Not I”: The Neuroscience of Dissociative Identity Disorder https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9045405/
Abnormal hippocampal morphology in dissociative identity disorder and post‐traumatic stress disorder correlates with childhood trauma and dissociative symptoms https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4400262/
Dissociative identity state-dependent working memory in dissociative identity disorder: a controlled functional magnetic resonance imaging study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9059616/
Hippocampal and amygdalar volumes in dissociative identity disorder https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16585437/
Similar cortical but not subcortical gray matter abnormalities in women with posttraumatic stress disorder with versus without dissociative identity disorder https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925492715000153
I see you reblogged a tumblr masterlist, so I’m also going to give one. I borrowed a good chunk of the above sources from this post, but honestly I believe they have it worded much better than me so please take a look at it: https://www.tumblr.com/hazedxg0/810510432819363840/could-i-please-have-the-links-to-medical-studies
I will say as a last note, I take more issue in the fact that nontraumagenic plurals use the same terms as us (pwDID/OSDD) and insist that they share a similar experience as us just because they view themselves as multiple. The insistence that we share an experience all the while trying to disprove things like the trauma model is contradictory and does not help trauma survivors. They do not have the same experience as us. My multiplicity entirely revolves around our trauma. Our alters exist because of trauma and stress. If I did not have this disorder, I would not be multiple. If I wasn’t multiple, I wouldn’t have this disorder. My disorder and my multiplicity are one and the same, and I’m tired of trying to appeal to people who say they have the same experience as me but “without the disorder”.
If someone views themselves as “multiple” for an entirely personal reason, does not compare themselves to CDDs, and does not use our terms or copies of them (like “symptoms holder/keeper”, which isn’t possible in non-CDD brains) then, honestly? I couldn’t care less. I might be on edge around them due to my experience in the endogenic community, but ultimately, I don’t give a shit. I don’t believe multiplicity seen in CDDs exists outside of them, but who am I to judge if you’re being respectful?
question for people of all syscourse stances: if someone was psychotic and experienced their hallucinations as coming from other people, specifically the same few other people, would you consider this to be a plural/system experience? if not, what differentiates this experience from a plural/system whose alters/parts don't front, in your opinion?
EDIT: i'm not implying that they're the same, i'm just curious about why exactly you personally believe they aren't or are! thank you all for sharing your thoughts :P
does anyone have any scientific/clinical anti endo resources that aren't the DSM/ICD? ideally specifically resources claiming that CDDs are the only way to experience plurality, but i'd appreciate anything. i've been struggling to find enough for my research!
Maybe a hot take? I actually think it's okay to normalize seperate spaces for CDD and non-CDD systems. And maybe we should do it a little more.
Like. I see a buuuuunch of posts about CDD systems who start their sys-journey out in endogenic communities and who internalized a lot of fake claiming as a result (for not experiencing systemhood in the same way as the people they're surrounded by).
I've seen it happen in the reverse too. Young endogenic systems who start out in the traumagenic community and try to mold their systems to fit a shape they aren't meant to fit, just so they can fit in.
I think that harms everyone in the long run, but when you're a young multiple or plural and you don't have the language to describe your experience, you'll probably latch on to whichever label you find first. I know we did. And that might lead to some harm as you try to be something that you're not.
I do think that there should be shared spaces, but I lowkey think that like. Maybe there should be more separate spaces then there are. They're big chilling.
I think this is another ideal I carry from the tulpamancy communities that I'm a part of. Many of the tulpamancers I know aren't in many mixed spaces because tulpamancy works entirely differently to CDD's and no one wants someone with a CDD to mistake their alters for tulpas and never get the help that they need.
Mostly I see this as an issue with the pro-endo community. There are plenty of spaces for just CDD's, but I don't think I've ever seen a space for endos exclusively that wasn't a tulpamancy server.
interesting idea! would you be willing to elaborate more on why an appealing solution to the internalizing fakeclaiming is separate spaces, instead of something like normalizing variance in presentation?
Plurality, as conceptualized in peer-reviewed research:
Plurality, often also called multiplicity, is "having more than one self in the mind and body" (Eve & Parry, 2021).
Plurality "is not a diagnosis" (Eve, et al., 2023) and is "a broader concept than DID" (Christensen, 2022).
Plurality is "a broad term, which encompasses a range of experiences" because "people have individual conceptualizations of what it means to be ‘more than one’" (Eve, et al., 2023).
Plurality is "a term coined to be more inclusive than only that of traumagenic multiplicity" (Christensen, 2022).
Not all people who experience plurality will identify as a 'plural' or 'multiple.' Plurality is a useful umbrella term for the experience of more-than-oneness "but not necessarily a term reflective of one's identity or self-expression" (Christensen, 2022).
"[N]ot everyone who identifies as multiple will want or require mental health intervention for the condition they experience" (Eve, et al., 2023).
The concept of non-traumagenic plurality does not hurt DID research. "[T]he research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity . . . Distinguishing between the two does not need to invalidate either" (Christensen, 2022).
The idea that plurality is inherently disordered is a product of Western culture. "Within Western linear frameworks . . . there has been an emphasis on the ‘healthy self’ being integrated and whole" (Eve & Parry, 2021). "In indigenous cultures, esp. shamanic societies, a polypsychism (i.e. many selves) prevails" (Scharfetter, 2008).
Fakeclaiming and anti-endo / anti-plural rhetoric is traumatizing. "[H]aving a condition such as multiplicity that is not generally validated and recognised in a community can be, in itself, traumatic. Even if trauma does not precede the development of multiplicity, trauma-informed care would still be appropriate for many young people who seek help for multiplicity" (Parry, et al., 2021).
(MY BLOG IS NEUTRAL AND I AM COMMENTING IN GOOD FAITH)
adding additional information: the (Eve & Parry, 2021) source is a Youth & Policy article. Youth & Policy is a peer-reviewed nonprofit focused on boosting the voices of young people. (source: the "about us" page)
criticisms:
the (Eve & Parry, 2021) source mischaracterizes at least one cited source: (Parry, Lloyd & Simpson, 2018) does not claim that "many people first experience multiplicity in their adolescence." this is not one of the central claims of that article, and even if it was, that study is a qualitative study with 5 participants and is therefore not generalizable. while i did not check every source cited from the Eve & Parry article, this does unfortunately call into question the validity and rigor of the article as a whole
the (Parry, et al., 2021) source is based on self-report, which is inherently a less reliable form of gathering information. it's still valuable, but it really could be better.
if you're interested in further reading regarding the second to last point, i highly recommend "Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts" (Clayton, 2005)!
Thank you for your additional information and good faith comment!
In response to your first criticism, I want to politely point out that I think you've misunderstood something. Here is the full quote you are referring to:
"Additionally, qualitative research with people with lived experience has indicated that many people first experience multiplicity in their adolescence (e.g. Parry, Lloyd & Simpson, 2018), highlighting the need for further research with young people who experience themselves as multiple."
This quote is not claiming that people in the general population experience multiplicity in their adolescence. It is claiming that many people with lived experience (who are already multiple/plural) first experience their multiplicity/plurality in adolescence.
Secondly, the authors are not claiming that Parry, Loyd, & Simpson made this claim. The "e.g." stands for "for example" because it is something that is experienced by the participants in Parry, Loyd & Simpson's study.
The reason they're using "e.g." is because there are numerous studies that involve people who first started experiencing their multiplicity/plurality in adolescence, several of which are cited in Parry, Loyd & Simpson's paper too.
Furthermore, Parry is an author of both articles. I'm making an assumption here but I think it's likely that she used one of her former studies as an example because it involves participants and data that she has personally worked with and feels confident applies in this context.
Plurality, as conceptualized in peer-reviewed research:
Plurality, often also called multiplicity, is "having more than one self in the mind and body" (Eve & Parry, 2021).
Plurality "is not a diagnosis" (Eve, et al., 2023) and is "a broader concept than DID" (Christensen, 2022).
Plurality is "a broad term, which encompasses a range of experiences" because "people have individual conceptualizations of what it means to be ‘more than one’" (Eve, et al., 2023).
Plurality is "a term coined to be more inclusive than only that of traumagenic multiplicity" (Christensen, 2022).
Not all people who experience plurality will identify as a 'plural' or 'multiple.' Plurality is a useful umbrella term for the experience of more-than-oneness "but not necessarily a term reflective of one's identity or self-expression" (Christensen, 2022).
"[N]ot everyone who identifies as multiple will want or require mental health intervention for the condition they experience" (Eve, et al., 2023).
The concept of non-traumagenic plurality does not hurt DID research. "[T]he research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity . . . Distinguishing between the two does not need to invalidate either" (Christensen, 2022).
The idea that plurality is inherently disordered is a product of Western culture. "Within Western linear frameworks . . . there has been an emphasis on the ‘healthy self’ being integrated and whole" (Eve & Parry, 2021). "In indigenous cultures, esp. shamanic societies, a polypsychism (i.e. many selves) prevails" (Scharfetter, 2008).
Fakeclaiming and anti-endo / anti-plural rhetoric is traumatizing. "[H]aving a condition such as multiplicity that is not generally validated and recognised in a community can be, in itself, traumatic. Even if trauma does not precede the development of multiplicity, trauma-informed care would still be appropriate for many young people who seek help for multiplicity" (Parry, et al., 2021).
(MY BLOG IS NEUTRAL AND I AM COMMENTING IN GOOD FAITH)
adding additional information: the (Eve & Parry, 2021) source is a Youth & Policy article. Youth & Policy is a peer-reviewed nonprofit focused on boosting the voices of young people. (source: the "about us" page)
criticisms:
the (Eve & Parry, 2021) source mischaracterizes at least one cited source: (Parry, Lloyd & Simpson, 2018) does not claim that "many people first experience multiplicity in their adolescence." this is not one of the central claims of that article, and even if it was, that study is a qualitative study with 5 participants and is therefore not generalizable. while i did not check every source cited from the Eve & Parry article, this does unfortunately call into question the validity and rigor of the article as a whole
the (Parry, et al., 2021) source is based on self-report, which is inherently a less reliable form of gathering information. it's still valuable, but it really could be better.
if you're interested in further reading regarding the second to last point, i highly recommend "Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts" (Clayton, 2005)!
Singlets should be allowed to form opinions on things in the system community, the real thing they shouldn't do is speak over systems, regardless of opinion.
A lot of the people studying CDDs (and systems without) ARE singlets. So, why not allow singlets to look at what the community provides and go "oh, yeah this makes sense to me"
If youre a singlet in syscourse i urge you to please, take a look at information provided, and form your own opinion on it. That is okay, we encourage that!
This community is full of nuance the likes of which have never been seen. Explore it!
hate to argue about syscourse for like the nth time ever but i feel like equating psychiatric endorsement to accurace might be a bit harmful. like! remember the medical system is still awful to certain people ! and psychiatry + psychology are still considered very underdeveloped. black and brown people have a higher risk of being misdiagnosed, there are still people considered psychology professionals that don't consider CDDs to be even /real/
in one study, 582 French psychiatrists completed a questionnaire. 60.8% had never received ANY training on dissociative disorders. only 19.5% stated that they confidently believed that DID exists. 50% believed that DID was created by Hollywood and/or social media. (2025)
in another study, 83 U.S. professionals completed a survey. 26.5% claimed that they did not consider DID to be a valid disorder; 61.6% claimed that they were unlikely to believe a new patient who reports having DID. (2018)
this study found that, out of 301 American psychiatrists, only "about one-third" believed that DID should be included in the DSM. only "about one-quarter" believed that DID was supported by strong evidence and scientifically valid. (1999)
this study found that, out of 250 Australian clinicians, only 55% considered dissociative disorders to be valid diagnoses. (2005)
DISCLAIMER: due to time constraints and/or inability to find the full text, i only read the abstract of these articles. please do your own research!
