not a culture ask, but im curious, what is the difference between c-did and hc-did, if there is any?
I'll answer to the best of my ability :) Our lovely followers - and whoever stumbles upon this post - are invited to correct us and add to this post as they see fit. If corrected, this post will be edited to reflect accurate information!
Content notes and trigger warnings: mention of extreme childhood trauma, RAMCOA/OEA (ritual abuse, mind control, organized abuse / organized extreme abuse), TBMC (torture-based or trauma-based mind control), programming, torture, conditioning, training, groups, group leaders, self harm, punishment, sabotage, and dissociation.
We color coded HC-DID, C-DID, and polyfragmented information to make things easier to differentiate. However, this can appear overwhelming to certain individuals so be warned!
If you don't want an overload of potentially triggering information, here's the gist:
❦ HC-DID requires programming and group reinforcement. There is not an HC-DID system without RAMCOA/OEA and programming.
❦ C-DID may have programming and it's common, but it's not needed. Some level of RAMCOA/OEA or conditioning is required. You'll often see people use C-DID and polyfragmentation interchangeably.
❦ Polyfragmented DID can serve as an umbrella term for HC-DID and C-DID, as both are inherently polyfragmented. But it is also meant for polyfragmented systems who have not gone through RAMCOA/OEA or programming.
To start: both HC-DID (Highly Complex Dissociative Identity Disorder) and C-DID (Complex Dissociative Identity Disorder) are forms of polyfragmentation, which is defined below the cut. They are community based terms, but both have been discussed in research + psychology! HC-DID has been referred to as "Extremely Complex Multiple Personality Disorder" and C-DID as "Complex Multiple Personality Disorder". Contemporarily, the majority of conversation around HC-DID, C-DID, and polyfragmentation exists in the system community.
The information I provide here is a mix of published research on RAMCOA/OEA, how it connects to DID, and self reported differences from HC-DID and C-DID systems we trust. We have C-DID ourselves and will use some of our experience as guidance for the following descriptions.
Polyfragmented systems must meet most or all of the symptoms listed below in order to qualify as polyfragmented, with the landmark symptoms being the first 4 listed. The rest can be loose in presentation and shift depending on that system's traumatic history and how they perceived + compartmentalized it.
❦ It goes without saying that chronic childhood trauma and tertiary dissociation is needed in order to be a system in the first place. A polyfragmented system develops when the trauma is not only chronic, but starts in early childhood, complex, systemic, and deeply ingrained in the child's daily life. It is reinforced consistently. The child has little to no method of escape outside of dissociation.
❦ The system is mostly fragments (parts who only exist to serve one purpose, hold one feeling/memory, and/or who are extremely limited in expression) as opposed to fully fledged parts.
❦ Lower stress tolerance, more splitting, splitting occurs mostly in groups of fragments to manage compartmentalization.
❦ Chronic dissociation (early, reinforced maladaptive disconnection from reality). Difficulty or inability to latch on to non-dissociative coping mechanisms. Dissociation is the automatic stress response, even to low level stressors. Always dissociated to some degree.
❦ Specific and complex part roles.
❦ Complex system structures. This can look like:
❦ Layering/segmentation of parts and the inner world (separating/grouping parts based on their function, program, conditioning, traits, perception, etc. and heavier amnesia barriers between those layers as opposed to the typical spectrum observed between parts; places or objects intentionally created for specific parts to reside). These are specific to individual systems!
❦ A hierarchy between parts and layers (a part, role, system, or layer that has more power over the system than others)
❦ Internal filing systems and a large or complex inner world (often to the point of having multiple worlds, areas that are restricted to certain alters, and areas that can't be accessed at all). Some systems and parts may not have or be able to access an inner world at all, no matter how complex the system is.
❦ May have side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts.
(I included a few examples in the above that include RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmentation on top of non RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmentation.)
The biggest difference (that we've seen) between HC-DID and C-DID is the level of programming. Apart from chronic complex childhood trauma, programming/programmed parts are required in order to be an HC-DID system, whereas not every C-DID system will have programming/programmed parts. It is uncommon for a polyfragmented system to not have some type of trauma related to RAMCOA/OEA, torture, programming, conditioning, war, or something along those lines, but not impossible. As a result, some systems have adopted C-DID as a term for polyfragmented systems who do present with those particular variations of complex trauma, whereas polyfragmented on its own can qualify as both an umbrella term and a separate term for systems who have not experienced those variations.
In other words: the type and complexity of trauma dictates whether a system is complex or highly complex!
Because C-DID can be considered the blueprint for polyfragmentation, I will focus more on the additions that come with the RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning specific to C-DID systems.
❦ Chronic childhood trauma is inescapable. "Typical" ACEs may vary but RAMCOA/OEA, conditioning, and systemic/social/familial reinforcement at some level is always present. The child's life is defined by their abuse and the people or systems perpetuating it (this includes direct/intentional and indirect/unintentional perpetuation). Dissociation feels like their only escape and may be utilized by their abusers.
❦ The system is mostly fragments as opposed to fully fledged parts. Fragments may be specific to conditioning, organized abuse, masking (shell parts), commands/repetitive demands, or anything else that is deemed necessary to fulfill and uphold the perpetrator(s)'s ideals. This is on top of fragments who split to compartmentalize specific pieces of a traumatic event. There may be parts that are a result of programming.
❦ A much lower stress tolerance. Splitting may feel like second nature. Self-induced splits (AKA self-led re-traumatizing) may be present. Splits are always done in groups and may be fragmented as RAMCOA/OEA or conditioning specific parts, even if the cause isn't directly related.
❦ Chronic dissociation is either forced by a separate party or an automatic response to early life, extreme stressors. Heavy switching, blurring, and a full front are common. Sequential parts (parts who trigger one another by fronting and always front in a specific order), parallel parts (parts who front side by side to manage different parts of an event), and backup parts (parts who automatically take the position of a different part if they are unable to fulfill their role) are common. Always dissociated to some extent. Difficulty or complete inability to latch onto non-dissociative coping mechanisms. Will self sabotage, especially when faced with treatment. Dissociation is the automatic response to low level stressors and is often more extreme than a non-RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmented system.
❦ Specific and complex part roles. Often related to RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning, if not a direct result. May include a program or programs and reflect group roles/dynamics.
❦ Complex system structures:
❦ Layering and segmentation is related to or a result of RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning. Parts may be separated into different layers/segments/systems based on their functionality to the group, what trauma they hold (or if they hold trauma at all), whether they are "allowed" to exist or not, etc.
❦ The hierarchy between parts may be a result of programming, conditioning, and/or self-identified evidence for/perceived need. Gatekeepers (or internal handlers, if present) are at the "top".
❦ Internal filing systems are extremely restricted. If programmed, it follows similar function as an HC-DID system. If not, the restrictions are based on the system's personal trauma, perception, and experiences with their RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning.
❦ Side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts are more likely to develop. This is especially in response to triggers, stressors, and traumatic events that are similar to or the same as their experience with RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning.
❦ Chronic childhood trauma is inescapable to an extreme. "Typical" ACEs may vary but programming, group reinforcement, RAMCOA/OEA, and/or TBMC at some level is always present. The child's life, as they know it, is defined by the people or systems perpetuating their abuse (this includes direct/intentional and indirect/unintentional perpetuation, but direct/intentional is significantly more common in HC-DID). Dissociation is not just their only escape, but a tool used to mold them.
❦ The system is mostly fragments as opposed to fully fledged parts. Fragments may hold a command, punishment, mask (shell parts), or some other program to keep every part in line with the perpetrator(s)'s ideal. This is on top of fragments who split to compartmentalize specific pieces of a traumatic event. Multiple parts are a direct result of programming.
❦ A much lower stress tolerance. Splitting often feels like second nature, which can lead to self-induced splits. Splits are always done in groups of fragments. Some of which will adopt or re-adopt other parts' program(s) (whether present, forgotten, or already resolved) even if it's unrelated to the cause of the split.
❦ Chronic dissociation takes the form of almost constant switching and/or a full, blurry front. There are many sequential parts, parallel parts, and backup parts. Always dissociated. High difficulty or complete inability to latch on to non-dissociative coping mechanisms. There may be parts programmed to sabotage treatment. May use dissociation as a form of self or system harm on top of it being the automatic response to low level stressors. Dissociative response to triggers - particularly programmed triggers - is more extreme than it would be in a non-programmed system.
❦ Specific and complex part roles. Often related to programs and group roles/dynamics, if not a direct result.
❦ Complex system structures:
❦ Layering and segmentation is a result of programming. Parts may be separated into different layers or systems based on their functionality within the abusive group, their role in the group, what they accomplish for the programmer(s), etc.
❦ The hierarchy between parts and roles is a result of programming, training, or reinforcement. Parts/roles whose main function is to prevent other parts from acting out, keep program/training loops active, and prevent the system from leaving or questioning the abuse - often called "internal handlers" - will often be the most in charge. Parts/roles who mirror the group leader/programmer(s)'s behavior, speech patterns, and thought process may also be "above" other parts/roles.
❦ Internal filing systems may only be accessed by the group/programmer(s) or restricted to a specific part, role, or layer completely separated from the system. There may be "archives" or "command centers" specifically for programs/training. The inner world (if accessible) may be designed, adjusted, or mapped in accordance with the group/programmer(s)'s ideals. There may be areas within their inner world specifically for punishment, reinforcement, or re-programming.
❦ Side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts are very likely to develop.
Both C-DID and HC-DID systems:
❦ Will experience extreme paranoia, stress, and fear when they are removed from their group/abusers. They may re-traumatize themselves or will remain with abusers to maintain a sense of safety, comfort, or normalcy.
❦ Will go through periods of rebellion followed by intense self/part-led correction. This often comes in the form of exposing or talking about the abuse they experienced, then feeling terrified, being punished by a part, and wiping everything they can so it "didn't happen".
C-DID and HC-DID systems have a lot of overlap in symptom presentation, so it's important to remember that the extent of programming and the complexity of the system's structures are the best determinants for differentiating the two!
If your trauma caused you to split, then you were traumatized 'enough' to be traumagenic/have DID, OSDD or what have you. Trauma isn't always from a parent: it can be peer bullying/shunning, sibling abuse, near death experiences, experiencing death of a loved one or even a stranger, medical trauma, etc.
I will go one step further and say that if your system experience isn't purely traumagenic, and you're pushed out of supposed safe spaces because of it, don't feel pressured to change the labels that feel right for y'all. I have half a heart to not post this in traumagenic tags, because SO MANY traumagenic systems are anti endo it seems. But mixed origin systems exist, endo systems exist, non-disordered traumagenic systems exist, etc and plurality is such a large umbrella of different experiences (even yours!).
Something I very commonly see in system spaces, especially with newer systems and singlets in said spaces, is a lack of fictive etiquette.
So what does it entail? A few simple things that are pretty easy to remember if you start with one specific detail: fictives are not their source material.
This means that reaching out to a system solely because they have a fictive of a character you like is not okay nor is it safe. The concept of sourcemates can be dangerous— you do not know the system! They could have bad intentions, you don’t even know how old they are until you ask. I’ve seen many younger systems get into relationships with adult systems on this mistake. As tempting as it can be to seek comfort in people that are ‘from’ the same place, one’s ficto-memories are just that; fictitious. Plus, anyone could lie about being a system, or having a certain alter. And trauma survivors can be fragile and easy to manipulate, so it’s something you keep in mind. ‘Sourcecalls’ are a damaging concept as a whole.
That being said, do not treat a fictive like they are their source. If you see a fictive whose source is a problematic media, or the character they are based on is problematic or evil, do not assume that they are exactly like their source. One of the nicest people I have ever met was a fictive of the main villain of a violent video game. She is very sweet, and we are lucky to know her. Again, fictives are not their source. It’s impossible to say this too much. Don’t judge a fictive on their source.
If you or someone close to you believes themself to be their source, it can be extremely unhealthy. The solution: source seperation. (Moonali is making a post on that soon.)
All in all:
Fictives are their own people. You don’t know them until you get to know them properly. Treat them with respect and do not act like you know them simply because of their source.
Basic respect is easy, and for that, there is no excuse.
Nuance:
Not all systems feel this way. We are not ones to tell systems that they’re wrong for not doing something. Our word is not god, and no one should be harassed for not agreeing with anything we say. Further, we should not be attacked unless we have said something truly damaging.
Hi, I saw you make a userbox on C-DID and I wanted to ask if you maybe have a good resource or something that explains what it is? cause I have DID but ive never heard it with the C attached... no worries if not. thank you!!
C-DID stands for Complex DID. Complex DID and Polyfragmented DID are the same thing, though some people may say that there are some differences.
(I’ll just refer to it as polyfrag for the rest of this for simplicity)
Polyfragmented DID is considered a more “complex” version of DID. The complexity comes from:
splitting patterns ~ splitting several alters/fragments at once, splitting a lot over a short period of time, and/or splitting more frequently or easily
fragments ~ not all DID systems have fragments whereas polyfrag DID systems typically have at least some, if not a lot. Often times polyfrag can have subsystems made up of fragments or they’ll have at least one group of alters who are fragments holding similar trauma or the same traumatic experience split up between fragments (example: one fragment holds the emotions or the fear, one holds the sensations, one holds the memories, etc. or they each hold bits of memory. Or whatever else, it varies)
System Structure ~ briefly mentioned above, but with polyfrag it’s primarily about the way the system is structured or the way the system functions. Meaning polyfrag have subsystems (an alter has their own system OR there is a group of alters who exist together or function as one collective), a system or group of alters separated from the “main” group of alters, etc
The person typically starts being traumatized and forced to dissociate in infancy or sometimes as a toddler (whereas with DID, you can start developing DID later on). Though this is not a requirement and not always the case.
With polyfrag DID, they’re usually forced to dissociate throughout childhood, sometimes even throughout being a teen and sometimes during adulthood or at least early adulthood
polyfrag systems can have high alter count, but this is not a requirement. And it’s typically that they have lots of fragments, not fully-formed/fleshed out alters.
polyfrag systems do not have to switch frequently, though some do switch frequently or have a larger group of alters who help take care of daily things
Because Complex DID and Polyfrag DID are not actually medical terms, it’s hard to find reliable information on them. They are more just community terms for people to describe their unique experiences. Basically it’s a way to differentiate themselves from typical DID systems and a way to describe their more complex structure. Some therapists or medical professionals may describe someone’s DID as being complex or polyfragmented, but again, it’s not actually a medical term it’s more just a descriptor.
Every system is going to be different. Everyone uses these terms to mean something a little different. But the stuff I listed is generally what people use it to mean.
Here’s some links below (again, these aren’t medical terms so there aren’t really medical papers or anything on it and it’s mostly just people in the community describing their experiences or what they consider polyfragmentation)
Someone on tumblr listing what a polyfrag system usually means
Someone on tumblr describing difference between DID and C-DID
Someone on tumblr explaining what fragments are
Someone on tumblr explaining what polyfrag is and quoting research
Someone on tumblr listing what C-DID could entail
A PDF of a medical paper on complex MPD (this paper is from the 1980s I think, when DID was still called MPD)
A polyfrag DID systems vent on Reddit about what being polyfrag is for them (I wasn’t really sure about whether to include this or not bc it is a vent but it’s also a good explaination of what polyfrag DID actually is versus what people portray it as on social media..)
(if any of this is wrong plz let me know we’re not perfect lol and I didn’t read through all of these links)
Tim n Garry (Drawn by the coolest Tim EVER!!!)
(I'm just realizing im so used to calling this lad garry instead of gerry I was so confused when "timgerry" came up instead of "timgarry")
