If you make claims about endogenic plurality on my posts, include a legitimate source or you're getting blocked. I continue to evaluate and cite my sources; if you're commenting to challenge my argument, do your own research.
welcome! This is my blog where I share scientific or otherwise legitimate information I find that's related to DID/being a system.
I am not an expert by any means. I'm one person on the Internet who likes researching and writing. While there is not a vast amount of research available on DID, there are still dozens of established sources to draw from (see links below).
I'm here to present my research in the collective pursuit of truth, not to just argue. If you want to make a counterclaim, include a source, as I cannot blindly accept whatever I'm told is fact without knowing where it came from. Without any legitimate sources, I'm not engaging with the counterclaim, and I'll likely block you.
I encourage looking through the cited works I post - many of them address and expand upon many more aspects of DID than I can accurately describe. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to see the information for themselves and draw their own conclusions from it.
endogenic "systems" insisting that their perception of their lived experience overrules the general scientific consensus is kind of funny because
people misinterpret their experiences/symptoms all the time. that's part of why mental health clinicians even exist; to give you an educated analysis of what you're dealing with from an outside perspective
they are purposefully disregarding decades of research in favor of cherry-picking non-scientific sources that validate their mindset
it's ridiculous to insist that this mindset only applies to dissociative disorders. like do they realize how dangerous telling that to someone struggling with psychosis would be?
and before anyone comes at me with "but endos aren't claiming to have a dissociative disorder! they're just saying they're systems!" please stop and consider where their concept of systems originated from in the first place.
Reminder that "willogenic" and similar terms have been repeatedly disproven in current scientific literature. Here's a post I made that lays it out in detail with links to that research, but I included all the papers I cited here as well. The main takeaway from synthesizing that research has been that the Trauma-based Model of being a system has been shown to be accurate repeatedly and contradicts the Fantasy-based Model's premise that "DID can be simulated" (Vissia et al., 2016). As such, people claiming to be systems in a simulation of CDD systems, as seen in "endogenic" and "willogenic" systems, is unscientific, and these people really need to consider and recognize how their entire premise is fundamentally flawed.
Sources below the cut:
Dalenberg, C. J., Brand, B. L., Gleaves, D. H., Dorahy, M. J., Loewenstein, R. J., Cardeña, E., Frewen, P. A., Carlson, E. B., & Spiegel, D. (2012). Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation. Psychological bulletin, 138(3), 550–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027447
Reinders, A. A., Willemsen, A. T., Vissia, E. M., Vos, H. P., den Boer, J. A., & Nijenhuis, E. R. (2016). The Psychobiology of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Personality States: The Full Monty. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000522
Vissia, E. M., Giesen, M. E., Chalavi, S., Nijenhuis, E. R., Draijer, N., Brand, B. L., & Reinders, A. A. (2016). Is it Trauma- or Fantasy-based? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controls. Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 134(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12590
Endogenic "Systems" and the Trauma- v.s. Fantasy-Based Models
I've been doing some research trying to figure out how people who believe you don't need trauma to be a system actually rationalize that to themselves, and I think I have a better understanding of Why people calling themselves 'endogenic' think they're actually systems.
The research papers I reference here are publicly inaccessible, so I've uploaded them to this folder if you'd like to read them for yourself.
First, I'll define the Trauma-based and Fantasy-based models that I'll be referencing and describing throughout this post. In scientific literature, the Trauma Model posits that DID is "etiologically related to chronic neglect and physical and/or sexual abuse in childhood," whereas the Fantasy Model posits that DID can be simulated and is brought together by "high suggestibility, fantasy proneness, and sociocultural influences" (Vissia et al., 2016). In the same study where these definitions are provided, these outcomes are presented:
Figure 1. A list of significant study outcomes with emphasis on how "evidence consistently supports the Trauma Model of DID and challenges the core hypothesis of the Fantasy Model" (Vissia et al., 2016).
Another study that corroborates how the Fantasy Model is unsupported by existing evidence can be found through this study (Reinders et al., 2016):
Figure 2. The abstract of a paper highlighting how new psychophysiological data supports the Trauma Model and that new brain imaging data did not support the fantasy model (Reinders et al., 2016).
A third study that evaluated existing evidence for the Trauma- and Fantasy-based Models found that empirical evidence supports that trauma causes dissociation, and that dissociation is related to trauma history when fantasy proneness is controlled (Dalenberg et al., 2012):
Figure 3. The abstract of a paper highlighting how dissociation in the study was not reliably associated with suggestibility (Dalenberg et al., 2012), a key aspect of the Fantasy-based Model.
As is evident here, current scientific data consistently supports that the Fantasy-based Model is not accurate and that DID is caused by trauma and not merely through fantasy proneness. In other words, you can't just believe that you're a system for it to actually be true.
Sources below the cut:
Dalenberg, C. J., Brand, B. L., Gleaves, D. H., Dorahy, M. J., Loewenstein, R. J., Cardeña, E., Frewen, P. A., Carlson, E. B., & Spiegel, D. (2012). Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation. Psychological bulletin, 138(3), 550–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027447
Reinders, A. A., Willemsen, A. T., Vissia, E. M., Vos, H. P., den Boer, J. A., & Nijenhuis, E. R. (2016). The Psychobiology of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Personality States: The Full Monty. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000522
Vissia, E. M., Giesen, M. E., Chalavi, S., Nijenhuis, E. R., Draijer, N., Brand, B. L., & Reinders, A. A. (2016). Is it Trauma- or Fantasy-based? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controls. Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 134(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12590
Endogenic "Systems" and the Trauma- v.s. Fantasy-Based Models
I've been doing some research trying to figure out how people who believe you don't need trauma to be a system actually rationalize that to themselves, and I think I have a better understanding of Why people calling themselves 'endogenic' think they're actually systems.
The research papers I reference here are publicly inaccessible, so I've uploaded them to this folder if you'd like to read them for yourself.
First, I'll define the Trauma-based and Fantasy-based models that I'll be referencing and describing throughout this post. In scientific literature, the Trauma Model posits that DID is "etiologically related to chronic neglect and physical and/or sexual abuse in childhood," whereas the Fantasy Model posits that DID can be simulated and is brought together by "high suggestibility, fantasy proneness, and sociocultural influences" (Vissia et al., 2016). In the same study where these definitions are provided, these outcomes are presented:
Figure 1. A list of significant study outcomes with emphasis on how "evidence consistently supports the Trauma Model of DID and challenges the core hypothesis of the Fantasy Model" (Vissia et al., 2016).
Another study that corroborates how the Fantasy Model is unsupported by existing evidence can be found through this study (Reinders et al., 2016):
Figure 2. The abstract of a paper highlighting how new psychophysiological data supports the Trauma Model and that new brain imaging data did not support the fantasy model (Reinders et al., 2016).
A third study that evaluated existing evidence for the Trauma- and Fantasy-based Models found that empirical evidence supports that trauma causes dissociation, and that dissociation is related to trauma history when fantasy proneness is controlled (Dalenberg et al., 2012):
Figure 3. The abstract of a paper highlighting how dissociation in the study was not reliably associated with suggestibility (Dalenberg et al., 2012), a key aspect of the Fantasy-based Model.
As is evident here, current scientific data consistently supports that the Fantasy-based Model is not accurate and that DID is caused by trauma and not merely through fantasy proneness. In other words, you can't just believe that you're a system for it to actually be true.
Sources below the cut:
Dalenberg, C. J., Brand, B. L., Gleaves, D. H., Dorahy, M. J., Loewenstein, R. J., Cardeña, E., Frewen, P. A., Carlson, E. B., & Spiegel, D. (2012). Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation. Psychological bulletin, 138(3), 550–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027447
Reinders, A. A., Willemsen, A. T., Vissia, E. M., Vos, H. P., den Boer, J. A., & Nijenhuis, E. R. (2016). The Psychobiology of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Personality States: The Full Monty. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(6), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000522
Vissia, E. M., Giesen, M. E., Chalavi, S., Nijenhuis, E. R., Draijer, N., Brand, B. L., & Reinders, A. A. (2016). Is it Trauma- or Fantasy-based? Comparing dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, simulators, and controls. Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 134(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12590
The fact that the term "traumagenic" is used to refer to being a system is absurd. Systems are traumagenic by design. The formation of a system depends on trauma. If you're not 'traumagenic,' you're not a system.
Kind of wondering if the people responding actually read through the post I wrote and linked for this purpose
I already provided proof of my claims in the original post I linked to because I thought it was unnecessary to copy and paste all of it if I provided a direct link.
If you think systems can be 'non-traumagenic' in any capacity, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a system is to begin with. I wrote another post here with sources on what that actually means based on current scientific consensus.
I compile these posts so I can link to them so I don't have to rewrite the same thing with the same images every time and fill up peoples' dashboards. I would appreciate it if you read the posts I link to in my post before responding.
The fact that the term "traumagenic" is used to refer to being a system is absurd. Systems are traumagenic by design. The formation of a system depends on trauma. If you're not 'traumagenic,' you're not a system.
Transmedicalists are and have been deeply harmful to the rest of the transgender community because they believe you have to medically transition to be trans, and they push this idea onto other transgender people. CDD systems are trying to spread the most current scientifically-backed information about how systems form and function as the result of severe, repeated trauma.
Pluralpedia claims that the term 'sysmed' is modeled after transmed because both believe that "a certain phenomenon is only valid if they fit precise medical definitions and ideals." This is a false equivalence; a transmedicalist's ideology of precision and adhering to certain societal ideals, versus a severely traumatized person who wants to share what the consensus from legitimate research means about becoming a system, are not at all on the same level in terms of causing harm.
'Sysmed' wrongfully equates an extremely harmful, hateful ideology to CDD systems combating misinformation in their community. The term is especially harmful when used against a transgender system - you're roping them in with transmedicalists when the vast majority of trans systems are just living their lives. This is wrong to do and causes harm to trans people with CDDs. This makes it transphobic. Hope that helps
Reminder that 'endogenic plurality' is a spiritual belief and no one is obligated to act like your belief is true when you're going against established, repeatedly-proven scientific information
Transmedicalists are and have been deeply harmful to the rest of the transgender community because they believe you have to medically transition to be trans, and they push this idea onto other transgender people. CDD systems are trying to spread the most current scientifically-backed information about how systems form and function as the result of severe, repeated trauma.
Pluralpedia claims that the term 'sysmed' is modeled after transmed because both believe that "a certain phenomenon is only valid if they fit precise medical definitions and ideals." This is a false equivalence; a transmedicalist's ideology of precision and adhering to certain societal ideals, versus a severely traumatized person who wants to share what the consensus from legitimate research means about becoming a system, are not at all on the same level in terms of causing harm.
'Sysmed' wrongfully equates an extremely harmful, hateful ideology to CDD systems combating misinformation in their community. The term is especially harmful when used against a transgender system - you're roping them in with transmedicalists when the vast majority of trans systems are just living their lives. This is wrong to do and causes harm to trans people with CDDs. This makes it transphobic. Hope that helps
The fact that I still see the term "Sysmed" being thrown is extremely reprehensible. It originates from "Transmed," a term for trans people who believe you have to medically transition to 'actually' be trans (among other things; going from the Pluralpedia definitions here).
The difference here is that transmeds have/follow a set of very specific, often unreasonable ideals that they project onto everyone else, while "sysmeds" are trauma survivors following the massive body of research explaining how systems only form from trauma because repeated [childhood] trauma measurably, experientially, physiologically, and physically lays the foundation for how you develop and what happens to you after. I could cite some of the studies described in the "The Body Keeps the Score" here but this is also literally just what has happened to me In Real Life.
To draw a comparison from transmeds' harmful ideology to a group of severely traumatized people repeatedly presenting the basic science written above is not only deeply ableist but transphobic as well! A lot of [traumatized] systems are trans/have trans alters, and it's deeply upsetting for us to see others' attempts to explain basic cause and effect to 'endogenic' "systems" and still getting dismissed with a deeply transphobic, ableist term.
This ended up really long but I think it's important. "Sysmed" is an ableist, transphobic term being thrown at severe trauma survivors and if you don't see the problem with using it after that I really don't know what to tell you
@pluricfag asked me to explain how 'sysmed' is transphobic, so I tried to break it down here.
Transmedicalists are and have been deeply harmful to the rest of the transgender community for the ideology I explained in the post. CDD systems are trying to spread the most current scientifically-backed information about how systems form and function as the result of severe, repeated trauma.
Pluralpedia explains that the term 'sysmed' is modeled after transmed because it claims that both believe that "a certain phenomenon is only valid if they fit precise medical definitions and ideals." This is a false equivalence; the connection between transmedicalists' ideology of precision and certain ideals and a severely traumatized person who wants to share the consensus from legitimate research means about becoming a system is extremely tenuous.
'Sysmed' is transphobic and stems from a false equivalence because it equates an extremely hurtful, hateful ideology from people within the transgender community to CDD systems combating misinformation in their community, even when some of those systems are trans themselves. This is wrong to do. If that doesn't explain why using 'sysmed' is transphobic, I hope that one day you can make that connection for yourself
The fact that I still see the term "Sysmed" being thrown is extremely reprehensible. It originates from "Transmed," a term for trans people who believe you have to medically transition to 'actually' be trans (among other things; going from the Pluralpedia definitions here).
The difference here is that transmeds have/follow a set of very specific, often unreasonable ideals that they project onto everyone else, while "sysmeds" are trauma survivors following the massive body of research explaining how systems only form from trauma because repeated [childhood] trauma measurably, experientially, physiologically, and physically lays the foundation for how you develop and what happens to you after. I could cite some of the studies described in the "The Body Keeps the Score" here but this is also literally just what has happened to me In Real Life.
To draw a comparison from transmeds' harmful ideology to a group of severely traumatized people repeatedly presenting the basic science written above is not only deeply ableist but transphobic as well! A lot of [traumatized] systems are trans/have trans alters, and it's deeply upsetting for us to see others' attempts to explain basic cause and effect to 'endogenic' "systems" and still getting dismissed with a deeply transphobic, ableist term.
This ended up really long but I think it's important. "Sysmed" is an ableist, transphobic term being thrown at severe trauma survivors and if you don't see the problem with using it after that I really don't know what to tell you
I haven't really seen people talking about this, but when my alters and/or I disagree with each other, it usually leads to painful psychosomatic symptoms all over my brain and body. I experience a lot of these symptoms and I really have to careful how much I push back when an alter wants/needs something, because I've had blackouts when an alter was angry with me and took control to self-harm. I can end up resigning myself to just dealing with the pain, though.
All of this to say, is this an experience others have had? Were you able to negotiate with your parts/alters/etc.? How did you do that?
tl;dr I'm on poor terms with most of my alters, and it causes me physical and emotional pain. I'm wondering if any other systems on here have experienced this before and/or dealt with it successfully.
thinking about compiling a post about how DID/systemhood is also a developmental disorder but that statement already feels logical on its own like. Yeah experiencing severe, repeated trauma during your critical formative years is going to change the way your brain and body develop, that's why they're called Formative Years to begin with
the brain is a physical organ like any other and we can adapt and change the physical structure of the brain (see neuroplasticity). that's one of the goals of affirmations; repetition will gradually develop and reinforce new pathways in the brain. this repetition also applies to the processes involved in system formation - over time, the repeated trauma forces the brain to physically adapt, dissociation is reinforced, etc.
thinking about compiling a post about how DID/systemhood is also a developmental disorder but that statement already feels logical on its own like. Yeah experiencing severe, repeated trauma during your critical formative years is going to change the way your brain and body develop, that's why they're called Formative Years to begin with
Something that isn't talked about enough around disorders like PTSD and DID is the paranoia and the fear.
Someone is walking behind you a bit too close? They're following you. Someone talked to you in a nicer tone than you would expect? They're trying to manipulate and get close to you. Getting a whiff of a smell that reminds you of a bad incident? Its happening all over again. Someone bumps your arm or their hand grazes against it? They're trying to grab you.
Now obviously this will not be the case for everyone, but for some. It is. - Wilbur
(no not wilbur soot I am horrified that I have to clarify that)
So, @sophieinwonderland's excerpt from the ICD-11 exists on their website. I was mistaken; I acknowledge this. I did say I would look at the quoted ICD statements though, so let's look at the criteria in question.
Here, we see how Sophie uses a minor aspect of the criteria for excluding Dissociative Identity Disorder as a diagnosis to try and prove that 'natural' systems exist beyond the bounds of spiritual practices:
as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners
Tulpamancy and mediumship are spiritual practices. This means that there is intentional effort to create a 'system'. This is not proof of 'natural' plurality. You are not a system just from these practices. You are a spiritual practitioner, because being a system is so much more than just headmates.
You are intentionally stretching the exclusion of spiritual practices in the DID criteria to include whatever you want.
The ICD-11 specifies culturally-accepted spiritual practices; the definition does not have hard limits because researchers acknowledge that they are not infallible. This applies to any type of scientific research. Using a very small loophole in an official source to try and insist that something is real on a technicality is a massive reach.
So, yes, the quoted section from the ICD-11 does exist. Sophie is twisting the definition to include all non-disordered systems when that is Clearly not the intention of the original criteria. Saying you're technically correct from a loophole when what you're claiming is obviously not what the authors were intending is a weak argument.
I believe that being scientifically accurate is more important than being right, and so I will acknowledge my own fallibility. You can say you were right, and I suppose you are. I'm saying that you still don't have enough evidence to challenge the amount of scientific, legitimate evidence against your claim.
The reality is, even with this loophole, there is still very little legitimate evidence supporting 'natural' systems, as opposed to the massive body of evidence against it. Since you seem to understand that the ICD-11 is a credible source, I imagine finding other credible scientific and academic evidence should be easy if it actually exists. If i write a term paper with only one source, that's not a very good paper.
