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.
Scrolling through you're blog and we just wanted to add to it, I guess? Since you don't seem to care who interacts.
We're traumagenic. Probably osdd but we have yet to seek any sort of diagnosis or anything of the sort yet. We will eventually, we just can't right now.
We're endo neutral. Not a lot of people seem to like endo neutral people. We're not neutral because we choose not to take a stance, but because we want to stay out of syscourse as a whole [pt: as a whole] (it can be seen as not taking a stance I guess, but it's more staying out of it completely than anything else). Yeah, we come across it and read and stuff, but if we actually get involved in any way shape or form, we hate it. We're in a couple discord servers for systems. Two are anti-endo. The first one, when asked about the validity of endos (possibly to weed out any pro-endos tbh) we just said it stressed us out too much to be part of any conversation about syscourse or the discussion of endogenic systems. The second one didn't ask so we didn't say anything. In both pro-endo servers we're in, we just said we were neutral and they were fine with it. We don't ask about origins and nobody has brought up the topic yet so we're. Okay. But we will drop a conversation immediately if someone brings up origin in a conversation because it's just discourse we's prefer to stay out of.
We've seen people call endos a hate group, we've seen people call endos systems and valid and it's just. We've seen both sides. We are staying out of it. We're not giving any input on it (aside from this) and we're not contributing to someone else's input. We're not interacting with "anti-endo-(character)" or "pro-endo-(character)" blogs because it feels like taking a stance and we don't want to be part of it.
It's very stressful for us and I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if the stress builds up enough to split someone off (which would mean we'd need an offline break from tumblr and discord. We know when to stop sometimes). This is probably the only time we're engaging with anything syscourse related, but we're interested in your essay and stuff. You can use us as an example for endo-neutral stuff if you end up wanting to/writing anything about endo-neutrals.
This feels like a vent I'm sorry it's not meant to come off that way. It just feels nice to be able to explain what our [pt: our] version of endo-neutral is.
Thank you for telling me this. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I agree that it's stressful; there's a reason I take breaks from this blog!
sorry rants in your inbox but that one anon being like "well DID is different than "simulated" systems and singlets so endos aren't real" is like saying trans people don't exist because you compared cis people to people pretending to be trans and decided that the people pretending to be trans aren't actually the gender they're pretending to claim so that trans people aren't the gender they are. that's how it sounds. studies on singlets pretending to be systems is not actually studies on those who fully claim to be systems and claim the experience outside of pretending in a study. please. shut the fuck up anon. shut up.
i agree. there is a difference between "i do not have any plural experience at all" vs "i consider myself plural, just in a different way" and lumping them together is pretty ridiculous, even if you don't believe endos are real. it definitely made it clear that that anon's idea of an endogenic system starts and stops at "DID faker". even if endos hypothetically WERE DID fakers, not considering endos and singlets separately cannot give conclusive results; they would need to be compared to one another to determine if there actually is a difference, rather than lumped into the same category and just assumed that the results are generalizable
if you think "standing in the middle" makes you a scientist, it doesn't. science itself also has a political stance and science suggests that the only cause of plurality is trauma.
Sure you can listen to people "of all stances," but you have to accept what actual scientists say if your username has the word "scientist" in it.
Being "a scientist" and engaging in syscourse is itself an oxymoron.
source: about every paper from 2001-2026 on the topic, as well as MRI studies, longitudinal studies and papers on neurobiological similarities of those with DID compared to both "simulated" systems and those who are singlets but have been traumatized/abused (can't exactly give you a resource of every single paper but there are more than enough resources going around with links to papers attached).
i am not studying whether endogenics are real, i am studying the interpersonal discourse: what people are saying, why people believe what they do, how this affects the culture online, how this affects individual people, and so on. but even if i was studying whether it was real, the only way to do that is to genuinely consider both possibilities. you cannot be a scientist without being open to being wrong; instead, you review ALL of the data (not just the stuff that already agrees with you) and make your conclusions from there.
of course i am taking scientific evidence and research into consideration. you're right that this is a super important part of the scientific process. you may notice several instances of me seeking out research on my blog. i am also taking community input into consideration, because the community IS what i'm studying.
even assuming that there is an abundance of rigorous undeniable evidence and widespread scientific consensus that one side is correct and the other is not (which i do not believe is actually the case in EITHER direction), do you think it's unscientific to investigate why someone would believe something that isn't true? should no scientist investigate why anyone would be a flat earther or anti-vaxxer because these are untrue politicized opinions? (DISCLAIMER i am not comparing any syscourse stance to either of these beliefs, i am only making a point about studying opinions and beliefs still being relevant even in extreme cases.)
in my actual essay, i will include the arguments both for and against endogenic systems not in an effort to "prove" whether they're real or not (or any other subtopic such as whether there should be segregated communities), but to analyze things like what types of arguments people make, what logical flaws each side has, the underlying reasoning and values behind each argument, and so on. i will attempt to remain as impartial as possible during this process and criticize both sides equally because minimizing bias IS part of science. additionally, if i publicly express my own stance, this will alienate a significant portion of my potential audience and significantly affect the quality of the data.
the end goal is for my essay to be a resource. i hope that it can be used for people to make informed choices and solidify their opinions. i think that a lot of people "pick a side" without actually fully understanding all of the nuances and arguments of this topic, and then defend that stance just because that's what they know and what their friends believe. i understand and respect this because the discourse is often very toxic and lacks actual nuanced discussion; you have to spend a lot of time subjecting yourself to a lot of negativity and filtering through so much toxicity to get to the actual points people make, and not everyone wants to do that. so my essay will hopefully be a resource that cuts out all of that stuff and lays out all of the information plainly to allow the reader to come to their own conclusions accordingly. this is another reason why i want it to remain as impartial and balanced as possible: if it was biased to one side, it wouldn't be the reader making their own choice, and it would quickly be rejected in entirety by the other side for being "misinformation". (i already know that it'll be rejected by a lot of people for even including multiple opinions in the first place, so i'm trying to not make it worse.)
hopefully this clears things up for you; feel free to send another ask if you're still concerned.
I don't fw "endo neutral" mfs btw. You can't be neutral on someone's existence. How the fuck are you neutral on if someone exists or not. That's not how that works. You either think they exist or you don't it's really fucking simple.
> You either think they exist or you don't it's really fucking simple.
can you elaborate on this? what's your opinion of someone who's still in the process of doing research before coming to an opinion, or otherwise lacks enough information necessary to come to a conclusion?
i can very clearly imagine a person who doesn't really know/understand what 'endo' even refers to seeing the intense pressure in the community/ies (including posts like this) to "pick a side" describing themselves as endo neutral while they're still figuring it out. in fact, i used to personally know people who did this when they were new to everything.
i assume you agree that it's important to do research before coming to a conclusion. if, in your opinion, it's not acceptable to label yourself neutral in the meantime, what would you prefer instead?
additionally, if different parts had different opinions, how would you prefer that system to collectively label themselves, if not neutral?
I'd much rather that if someone doesn't know enough to have a concrete opinion on something to just not label themselves anything before feeling confident enough to actually take a stance. It's simply a lot safer I believe, because, like my post clearly exemplifies, neutrality in this case leaves a bad impression for us (snd many others). I'd much rather someone straight up just admit they don't know enough about something from the getgo and not getting involved in the meantime instead of possibly alienating a entire community they might even come to support.
On the other hands, I do see how honestly claiming to be neutral when multiple members have differing opinions can work, and I can see how that'd be a way to use the terminology. In that case while I'd still be wary regardless I think it'd be fine if it's made clear it's because of different members having different opinions. But honestly I'd still prefer if that was just outright stated to be the case instead of it being labelled as neutrality but much like I've said before I can't stop people from using whatever terms they want, It just means I'm not trusting of them.
I don't fw "endo neutral" mfs btw. You can't be neutral on someone's existence. How the fuck are you neutral on if someone exists or not. That's not how that works. You either think they exist or you don't it's really fucking simple.
> You either think they exist or you don't it's really fucking simple.
can you elaborate on this? what's your opinion of someone who's still in the process of doing research before coming to an opinion, or otherwise lacks enough information necessary to come to a conclusion?
i can very clearly imagine a person who doesn't really know/understand what 'endo' even refers to seeing the intense pressure in the community/ies (including posts like this) to "pick a side" describing themselves as endo neutral while they're still figuring it out. in fact, i used to personally know people who did this when they were new to everything.
i assume you agree that it's important to do research before coming to a conclusion. if, in your opinion, it's not acceptable to label yourself neutral in the meantime, what would you prefer instead?
additionally, if different parts had different opinions, how would you prefer that system to collectively label themselves, if not neutral?
my main question about endogenic plurality is the mechanisms behind it. itâs understood dissociation is the mechanism behind DID, but I donât 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 đ
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. đ
"[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: âHereâs Dissociative Identity Disorder, and weâre not thatâ: 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 âselfâ 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 thingâon the multi-track view it was never that in the first placeârather, 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:Â 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 â where multiple identities may coexist at unconscious level and may sometimes emerge to the consciousness â and DIDs, where multiple personalities emerge as dissociated, ostensibly autonomous components yielding impaired functioning, subjectâs 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: âAnd we are a human beingâ: Coproduced reflections on personâcentred psychotherapy in plural and dissociative identity
my main question about endogenic plurality is the mechanisms behind it. itâs understood dissociation is the mechanism behind DID, but I donât 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 đ
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 â 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 â 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 wrongÂ
The sociocognitive model of dissociative identity disorder: a reexamination of the evidence (not open access)Â
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 perspectiveÂ
A Cross-Cultural Test of the Trauma Model of DissociationÂ
The Weakness of the Sociocognitive Model of Dissociative Identity DisorderÂ
Is it traumaâor fantasyâbased? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, postâtraumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controlsÂ
Neuroscience of DID
âI Am Not Iâ: The Neuroscience of Dissociative Identity DisorderÂ
Abnormal hippocampal morphology in dissociative identity disorder and postâtraumatic stress disorder correlates with childhood trauma and dissociative symptomsÂ
Aiding the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder: pattern recognition study of brain biomarkers  (not open access)Â
A systematic review of the neuroanatomy of dissociative identity disorderÂ
Dissociative identity state-dependent working memory in dissociative identity disorder: a controlled functional magnetic resonance imaging studyÂ
Treatment of dissociative identity disorder: leveraging neurobiology to optimize successÂ
Normal amygdala morphology in dissociative identity disorderÂ
Hippocampal and amygdalar volumes in dissociative identity disorderÂ
A neurostructural biomarker of dissociative amnesia: a hippocampal study in dissociative identity disorderÂ
Neurodevelopmental origins of abnormal cortical morphology in dissociative identity disorder (not open access)Â
Voluntary switching between identities in dissociative identity disorder: A functional MRI case study Â
Dissociative Part-Dependent Resting-State Activity in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controlled fMRI Perfusion StudyÂ
Neurological Difference Between the Host and Alternate Identities of a Patient Diagnosed with Dissociative Identity DisorderÂ
Similar cortical but not subcortical gray matter abnormalities in women with posttraumatic stress disorder with versus without dissociative identity disorder (not open access)Â
Other
âMultiple Systemsâ 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 isnât just a singular one-and-done study that claims âthere is no such thing as nontraumagenic pluralityâ, you kind of have to use a combination of studies on alter formation and alter structure to come to the conclusion that âoh, this wouldnât work in a non-traumatized brain.â
The main contender for this conclusion is the theory of structural dissociation. It admittedly has its flaws, itâs not a perfect theory, however itâs the best we have so far, and I donât think itâs useful to completely throw it out just because someone says âwell I just identify this way!â 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 itâs ultimately the disorder that bridges the gap between DID and CPTSD, although itâs 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 Iâm going to ignore that for now.
Thereâs 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 isnât 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
Thereâs 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 wonât (ANPs). Itâs why alters can hold trauma memories, or why alters can have different tastes, voices, experience with a disorder, etc. The endogenic community suggests that itâs just an identity, or something that can happen naturally (Iâm 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, thereâs still an existing level of dissociation keeping the parts from fully fusing, so even in a âhealthyâ case of multiplicity, barriers still need to exist on some level.
Sources:
âI Am Not Iâ: The Neuroscience of Dissociative Identity Disorder https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9045405/
Abnormal hippocampal morphology in dissociative identity disorder and postâtraumatic 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 Iâm 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 wasnât multiple, I wouldnât have this disorder. My disorder and my multiplicity are one and the same, and Iâm tired of trying to appeal to people who say they have the same experience as me but âwithout the disorderâ.
If someone views themselves as âmultipleâ for an entirely personal reason, does not compare themselves to CDDs, and does not use our terms or copies of them (like âsymptoms holder/keeperâ, which isnât possible in non-CDD brains) then, honestly? I couldnât care less. I might be on edge around them due to my experience in the endogenic community, but ultimately, I donât give a shit. I donât believe multiplicity seen in CDDs exists outside of them, but who am I to judge if youâre 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?
