#information did

[informationsorter]

Does the ISST-D believe your alters are real?

How should therapists interact with the many alters of a DID/OSDD patient?

There's a lot of fearmongering out there about therapy, and the way therapists will treat the alters in a system.

Common fearmongering statements are: - That therapists will ignore every alter other than the "host"/"core"/"original". - That therapists will refuse to interact with any alter other than the "host"/"core"/"original", and won't help other alters even if they are in distress. - That therapists will be focused on "destroying" or repressing all alters other than the "host"/"core"/"original". - That the ISST-D guidelines say that alters are not real and should not be treated as real.

If your therapist is doing any of the above, you should immediately leave and seek a therapist who will actually follow the treatment guidelines.

The ISST-D is a guide for therapists to use while treating patients with DID/OSDD. It talks very clearly about how a mental health professional should treat alters.

The ISST-D states that a therapist must: - NOT refuse to talk to any alter. - Treat all alters as real and valid. - Treat all alters as their patients (not just the "host"/"core"/"original").

It states that a vital part of the healing journey is helping the alters communicate and cooperate. Which means that their patient would never begin to heal, if they did the things that fearmongers say they do.

Again, if your therapist is doing ANYTHING that concerns you, you should seek a new therapist and potentially seek legal aid.

The following are some relevant quotes from the ISST-D guidelines.

"Clinicians must accept that successful treatment of DID almost always requires interacting and communicating in some way with the alternate identities. Ignoring alternate identities or reflexively telling identities to “go back inside” is frankly countertherapeutic" 

- This means that a therapist must not ignore or reject any alter who wishes to speak with them.

"The development of internal cooperation and co-consciousness between identities is an essential part of Phase 1 that continues into Phase 2. This goal is facilitated by a consistent approach of helping DID patients to respect the adaptive role and validity of all identities, to find ways to take into account the wishes and needs of all identities in making decisions and pursuing life activities, and to enhance internal support between identities."

- This means that the therapist should help the patient’s communication and cooperation with all alters. Which requires the therapist to accept all alters as real and valid, and to help the alters accept each other as well. Breaking down denial can only happen if the therapist is not fuelling denial by ignoring or rejecting the reality of the patient’s alters. (In this situation “patient” refers to the body and includes every alter inside the body/system.)

"Although the DID patient has the subjective experience of having separate identities, it is important for clinicians to keep in mind that the patient is not a collection of separate people sharing the same body. The DID patient should be seen as a whole adult person, with the identities sharing responsibility for daily life. Clinicians working with DID patients generally must hold the whole person (i.e., system of alternate identities) responsible for the behavior of any or all of the constituent identities, even in the presence of amnesia or the sense of lack of control or agency over behavior (see Radden, 1996)." ” Taken together, all of the alternate identities make up the identity or personality of the human being with DID."

- These parts are talking about how all alters are part of a whole. This may seem impossible to you, or you may feel like this is saying that alters aren’t real, but that is not the case. The theory of Structural Dissociation says that no one is born with an integrated personality. As a normal stage of childhood, the separated personality states integrate. If repeated ongoing trauma prevents the normal integration, then you end up with DID/OSDD. But that’s a conversation for another post. In regards to therapy, these sections are telling the therapist that they should not encourage further dissociation and differentiation between the alters. (This is also seen in the section that relates to patients naming and describing their alters, as seen in this linked post.) And more importantly, that they should help the patient learn system responsibility. That is, to take responsibility for the actions of all alters, and increase communication and connection between the alters. Truly understanding that you are all part of a whole is vital to the later stages of the healing journey, and understanding of that should come with time, so it’s ok if you don’t understand yet. (See this linked post for more discussion about this.)

" It is countertherapeutic for the therapist to treat any alternate identity as if it were more “real” or more important than any other. The therapist should not “play favorites” among the alternate identities or exclude apparently unlikable or disruptive ones from the therapy (although Downloaded by [208.78.151.82] at 09:20 21 October 2011 Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12:115–187, 2011 133 such steps may be necessary for a limited period of time at some stages in the treatment of some patients to provide for the safety and stability of the patient or the safety of others)."

- This part very specifically tells the therapist to treat all alters fairly, and not to focus more on one alter than any other. That the therapist should not try to avoid alters that the therapist “doesn’t like”. It also implies that the therapist should not say negative things about any alters to the other alters, as this would be playing favourites. It does state that the therapist and patient may agree that a specific alter should temporarily step back from therapy for the good of the system, but that it is not considered appropriate to “cut out” an alter from therapy on a longer-term basis.

"... it is countertherapeutic to tell patients to ignore or “get rid” of identities (although it is acceptable to provide strategies for the patient to resist the influence of destructive identities, or to help control the emergence of certain identities at inappropriate circumstances or times)."

- This part is very clear and easy to understand. It says that therapist should never try to get rid of alters, no matter what, but that the therapist should help the patient (referring to the DID/OSDD system as a whole) learn coping mechanisms which will help the system/patient live a coherent and functional life. In addition to mitigating the destructive tendencies of a destructive alter, this may relate to things such as preventing little alters from fronting at work or at a nightclub, or helping a protector learn to front in safe spaces rather than only fronting in protective situations. All quotes taken from https://www.isst-d.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GUIDELINES_REVISED2011.pdf

[informationsorter]

Should I name my alters?

Or: How much separation is too much separation?

The ISST-D treatment guidelines state: "It is countertherapeutic to suggest that the patient create additional alternate identities, to name identities when they have no names (although the patient may choose names if he or she wishes), or to suggest that identities function in a more elaborated and autonomous way than they already are functioning." - Source: www.isst-d.org

So what does this mean? Why does this matter?

"Countertherapeutic" means "Working against a therapy". It refers to something that goes directly against the way therapy should be approached, enacted, or provided.

Doing something countertherapeutic will make your healing journey harder, and in some cases can cause you even more harm.

Does this mean that you should never give your alters names?

No. The guidelines clearly state that it is ok to name alters, but that you should not name alters who do not have names.

A personal take on this, by a reddit user, is: "You're supposed to discover and accept differences, not push alters to be more separate than they already are."

Basically, if an alter has a name, or chooses a name, and wishes to be referred to by that name, then you should accept that. If an alter changes their name, you should also respect that - especially as a lot of alters choose or have names which are descriptive of their roles, purpose, or values. And as these roles or purposes might change, the alter in question may wish to change names with it.

Interestingly, "Got parts? : an insider’s guide to managing life successfully with dissociative identity disorder / by A.T.W." actually suggests that people with DID/OSDD MUST pick names for parts/alters who do not have names. This is found in the section titled "Getting to know you".

In this case, I believe that the purpose of naming alters who do not have names, is to identify them and link that alter's personality, triggers, traits, etc together more easily. It is my interpretation that you do not need to pick a name, but that you do need to pick an identifier for each alter in order to complete the task laid out in that section of the writing.

Identifiers.

An identifier is a word, name, or term, which helps distinguish one person or alter from another.

For instance, at school you and your friends might refer to a fellow schoolmate as "the red haired girl".

In a system, you might refer to a little alter as "the happy one", or perhaps "the 6 year old".

Identifiers like this can help make sure that everyone in the conversation knows who you are talking about. This can be particularly helpful in therapy for DID/OSDD, as it will make it easier to track an alter's thoughts and personality, as well as helping the therapist identify which alter is having a particular problem, reaction, or any negative learned behaviours that they may need help with.

Systems will often use labels as identifiers - eg "host", "little", "protector". I even know a system who refers to alters by numbers in a chronological order (that is, the first alter to become known is alter 1, the next is alter 2, and so on). This particular method is unusual, because most people would interpret this as a hierarchy, or a way of saying that some alters are more important than others.

The type of identifiers you use is up to you and your system. Make sure to remember that identifiers can change at any time - "the angry alter" may become less angry, and then a new identifier may be needed. If you do not allow identifiers to change, you may accidentally be forcing other alters to feel as though they have to act in a certain way - eg "the persecutor" may have started healing and growing, but if you insist on still calling them "the persecutor", they may be angry or feel helpless to control their actions.

When is a name or identifier bad? - See this separate post.

What is the problem with increasing separation between parts?

It is my interpretation that pushing alters to be more separate than they actually are, will likely increase or strengthen dissociative barriers between alters, which is contrary to the goal/s of treatment (whether you want fusion or healthy multiplicity). And can make communication and cooperation even harder.

However, the ISST-D guidelines (and the personal experiences of many systems) shows that some separation, or acknowledgement of separation, is good and healthy.

Why is this? Isn't this a contradiction?

No. To summarise, you should not force names/traits onto an alter. But you should also not refuse to acknowledge that they have a name/trait.

If you break an alter's trust by forcing something on them, or by refusing to allow them to be themselves, your healing journey will become more difficult. All of your alters (including whichever alter is reading this) are equal. You are all part of the same person. So you should accept your differences AND similarities.

" Taken together, all of the alternate identities make up the identity or personality of the human being with DID." - Source: www.isst-d.org

In conclusion:

- Do not forcibly pick a name, appearance, trait, etc, for any alter.

- Do not insist that any alter must keep a previously chosen name, previously displayed trait, or insist that their appearance or age cannot change.

- Do not refuse to allow an alter to choose (or self-report) their name, appearance, traits, etc.

- Be respectful of an alter's choices.

- Be open to helping an alter if their choice of name indicates a deeper issue, but do not push them about it.

And

- Be careful. If you decide to assign an identifier, appearance, or other indicator, to an alter: Be mindful, and watch out for signs of increased barriers, dissociation, or otherwise negative results. If you see that starting to happen, I'd suggest slowing down and reviewing what could be causing it. Talk to your therapist about it if possible.

[informationsorter]

Myths surrounding DID/OSDD

In this post I will share links to articles and videos dealing with common myths and misconceptions.

Here are some of the most common ones, as found on sane.org

Myth: People with DID have multiple personalities that they call on at will. Reality: People with DID have experienced a fragmentation, or splintering, of their identity, rather than a growth of new identities. For the vast majority of people with DID, switching between alters is involuntary and can’t be identified by a casual observer at all.

Myth: People with DID are dangerous or violent. Reality: People with DID are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. There are very few documented cases linking crime to DID. The idea of an ‘evil’ alter is not true. Myth: DID isn’t real and people who say they have it are just pretending. Reality: The diagnosis of DID continues to remain controversial among mental health professionals as understanding of the illness develops, but there is no question that the symptoms are real and people do experience them. Myth: DID is the same as schizophrenia. Reality: DID and schizophrenia are very different illnesses. Schizophrenia is a psychotic illness, where a person may experience delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. It does not involve dissociation. People with DID are not delusional or hallucinating their alters.

DID MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS - An article on beautyafterbruises.org

More than one - website.

This website has a list of myths, and other information. The author very clearly states that the content is personal experience and that experiences may vary.

Is DID hereditary? Can someone with DID/OSDD be a parent? - A blog post that I wrote on this topic.

The Entropy System - youtube channel

The Entropy System is a DID system who runs a youtube channel. Their videos are widely accepted as informative and factual. Please remember to fact check (as seen in this post).

- Correcting Misconceptions about DID

- 10 Experiences that DON’T invalidate you | Dissociative Identity Disorder

- DID In The Media: United States of Tara - Thoughts on Glass from a person with DID - Co-consciousness and Other Confusion

[informationsorter]

Alters with different disorders?

Although it may seem impossible to believe, it is recognised that a person with DID/OSDD may have alters with varying disorders, sensory perceptions, allergies, etc. "Some DID patients have an uncanny ability to produce realistic conversion (i.e., somatoform dissociative symptoms that mimic serious medical problems, including seizures, severe headaches, neurological problems, breathing difficulties, etc.). In addition, somatoform elaboration may be superimposed on medical illness" - Source: www.isst-d.org

This is about those people with DID/OSDD who have alters with different medical problems, or different sensory perceptions. For example; where one alter has a strong sense of taste, but another can barely taste anything. Or; where one alter needs reading glasses and has measurably weak eyesight, but another alter has no need for glasses at all.

It may help to think of it thusly: - If the BODY has an issue, all parts/alters will have that issue. Eg a broken leg, damaged optical nerves, diabetes. However - If the issue only shows for some alters, and not for all alters, it is likely a somatic symptom. This is a somatic phenomenon - where your brain affects your body in ways that are not explained by physical causes. There are many psychosomatic disorders out there which also affect people who do not have DID/OSDD. These problems or differences are within the brain, and have the same impact as if there was an obvious physical cause. Someone with psychosomatic joint pain, cannot just push past it even though there is no physical cause for their pain. The pain is real. “ A somatic symptom disorder, formerly known as a somatoform disorder,[1][2][3] is any mental disorder that manifests as physical symptoms that suggest illness or injury, but cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition or by the direct effect of a substance, and are not attributable to another mental disorder (e.g., panic disorder). “ - Source: en.wikipedia.org

A very interesting subject, with a lot of information readily available online.

[informationsorter]

Integration VS Fusion - a definition.

The ISSTD treatment guidelines define INTEGRATION as:

“Integration is a broad, longitudinal process referring to all work on dissociated mental processes throughout treatment.”

“R. P. Kluft (1993a) defined integration as an ongoing process of undoing all aspects of dissociative dividedness that begins long before there is any reduction in the number or distinctness of the identities, persists through their fusion, and continues at a deeper level even after the identities have blended into one. It denotes an ongoing process in the tradition of psychoanalytic perspectives on structural change.”

The ISSTD treatment guidelines define FUSION as:

“Fusion refers to a point in time when two or more alternate identities experience themselves as joining together with a complete loss of subjective separateness. Final fusion refers to the point in time when the patient’s sense of self shifts from that of having multiple identities to that of being a unified self.”

The same guidelines also refer to a term which is all but unused in DID/OSDD communities: “resolution”. Resolution refers to a cooperative arrangement between the alters within a patient. That is, “sufficiently integrated and coordinated functioning among alternate identities to promote optimal functioning” In DID/OSDD social circles, this is what is often meant by “functional multiplicity”.

What does this mean?

The official definition of integration is about lowering barriers and communicating more efficiently between alters.

The official definition of fusion is about two or more alters becoming one, in a permanent state.

INTEGRATION: the act of lowering dissociative barriers and increasing inter-alter communication.

FUSION: the act of two or more alters joining together with a complete loss of separateness. 

FINAL FUSION: the point of time when every alter has fused and the patient considers themselves as being one. A unified self.

RESOLUTION: the state in which the patient has multiple identities, but they are integrated and coordinated enough to function optimally.

If you interact with DID/OSDD systems on social media (or IRL), you may find people using “integration” to mean “fusion”.

And in fact you may find other people using “integration” to mean “resolution”, as the term “resolution” is not in common use.

It is always best to check what definition a person is using.

Many systems are scared of integration because they believe it is fusion, however integration really just means being able to talk to one another, and learn to live together and function together.

If you do not want to fuse, you do not have to.

We will talk about treatment goals and how to communicate them with your therapist (and how to deal with it if a therapist is trying to force you into fusion against your will).

[informationsorter]

How to keep yourself safe from fear mongering and misinformation.

I know there's a lot of fear mongering out there, which feeds on misinformation and the common anxieties of those who have (or suspect they have) a disorder such as DID/OSDD.

The first rule is of course, do not trust anyone on the internet.

This includes me.

Fear mongering is when someone spreads fear and/or terror. Usually with a hidden agenda, but it can also be spread by those who don't know any better and who have been caught up in the fear. If someone is describing a terrifying situation (especially one that starts out seeming fine, but gradually becomes scarier and scarier until it reaches dystopian proportions), it is likely that it is just a fear mongering tactic. An example of fear mongering is "Gay marriage will lead to adults marrying children!". It usually involves multiple steps, which start out with a grain of truth, but twist the facts or use false equivalencies to make it seem as though their worst-case scenario is a real danger. The aim of fear mongering in this example is to convince people to vote against marriage equality. Inspiring fear in a person can also be used to scam that person. How many times have you heard of someone getting an official-sounding phone call which tells them they will be arrested if they don’t send such-and-such amount of money to them, or if they don’t purchase giftcards and give the codes to the scammer on the phone? It is the initial shock and fear which cause a person to fall for these. Fact checking is vital.

Fear mongering.

- Take a moment to overcome your initial emotional response. You need to be able to think clearly and logically when you are confronted with something that shocks and scares you.  - Try to think about their argument/statement rationally and objectively. Is it likely that in this day and age a therapist would illegally force a treatment on you without informing you of all of the facts about that treatment? Would a mental health professional risk a lawsuit and the loss of their licence by refusing to answer your questions about a treatment that they are insisting on? - Check for sources, and it is very important that you not only READ their sources, but also look for other sources by yourself. The source/s supplied by a fear mongerer will often support their statements and seem fairly convincing, but actually contain very little fact. You need to do an independent search for information which supports their claims, and information which contradicts their claims. If there is no truth to their claims, you will struggle to find reputable sources which support it, and are likely to find many that have evidence showing that the claim is false. (There is of course the chance that something is true but does not have sources for it - eg 50 years ago, there may not have been many official sources supporting the idea that being gay is fine, and there would have been many official sources claiming that being gay was a disease.)

Do not take any one person's word as fact.

- Check for reliable sources that back their statements.

- Look for multiple opinions/input, from a variety of sources. It's no good asking 10 people in the same group for their opinions and then taking it as fact if they all agree. If you are searching for information, you need to take everyone's advice/input/opinion with a grain of salt, and seek a wide variety of people to ask.

- If someone claims that such-and-such is the ONLY possible way to experience something, you should look into why they are claiming that, and what reliable sources they have to back it up.

- If something is really a fact, there will be SEVERAL reliable sources discussing it. Not just one source being reblogged or referenced by multiple other sources.

Check sources.

- Look at whether the person is actually linking the direct source of their "facts" or not. If they are simply claiming that such-and-such says this, or vaguely indicating that a certain government or organisation supports their view... That's not good enough. You will have to actually research it yourself and see whether that is the case or not.

- Be cautious if someone has quoted something but does not tell you where the quote comes from.

- Look at the full quote, not just the part that the person has quoted in their post/statement. It can be easy to take things out of context, and make it seem like the source supports a certain view, when in reality it does not.

- Actually open the links if someone is citing them as a source that supports their statement. It's very easy to assume that because someone has cited multiple sources, that those sources are accurate and relevant. But in reality, it would be quite easy to simply link a bunch of random official-sounding URLs, that actually have nothing to do with it.

Check credentials.

- If someone is claiming to be a therapist, scientist, or anyone working in a medical field, you should not believe them unless you are seeing them in a professional capacity IRL.

- You are

ALWAYS

entitled to see the qualifications of someone who is treating you, whether it is your GP or a mental health professional.

- If someone online is claiming to be a trained mental health professional, but is not treating you in an official arrangement, they should not be giving you in-depth advice or diagnosis.

-

A mental health professional should always get to know you and your background before giving you advice. THEY WILL NEVER ATTEMPT TO TREAT YOU OR DIAGNOSE YOU WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A FORMAL PATIENT-THERAPIST ARRANGEMENT.

Seek a trusted person to help you fact check if you are having difficulties.

A lot of sources may contain heavily jargoned text, especially when discussing medical conditions/disorders.

Find someone who you know you can trust, and who is willing to admit when they are mistaken. Ask that person to help you.

DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO ADMIT THEIR MISTAKES.

- Watch out for people using gaslighting tactics, or deleting conflicting opinions from their posts. There are some people out there who insist that they are correct, and will refuse to acknowledge any information which contradicts their statements. These people may use gaslighting techniques to supress anyone who tries to question what they've said.

- Any one who is working from a place of good intent, will be open to looking at reliable sources which contradict their statements.

- Similarly, if anyone tries to convince you that you DON’T need to check their sources, or that you can trust them without them providing sources, THIS IS A RED FLAG.

Is it ok to test someone?

In my opinion, when you are searching for accurate information, it is perfectly acceptable to test someone by asking them something you already know the answer to.

For example, when I went to the endocrinologist to talk about HRT, I asked her my most important question and she responded in a way that didn't match what my doctor had said.

So I tested her by asking a question I KNEW the answer to.

She answered incorrectly, and I knew that I would have to work hard to get accurate information out of her.

Here are some sites to help you fact check.

-

Scholastic.com

has an article aimed at children and teens, which is easy to understand and read. (It was also written by adults trying to use “hip” slang.)

https://choices.scholastic.com/issues/2019-20/120119/howt-to-fact-check-the-internet.html

-

Wikipedia

has a list of fact-checking websites, which may or may not be useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fact-checking_websites

-

Middlebury Libraries

has a short list of non-partisan fact checking sites.

https://middlebury.libguides.com/internet/fact-checking

And finally, I am aware this is a clumsy post, fuelled by an emotional response.

PLEASE reply or reblog with any information, links, tips, guides, etc regarding fact checking or protecting yourself from fear mongering.

**********************************************************************

This post was inspired by

THIS POST,

which builds on a common fear amoung those with DID/OSDD, and drives people away from seeking help, for fear of losing themselves.

**********************************************************************

Here is what you should do

if your therapist is trying to force you into fusion.

If your therapist is trying to trick you into undergoing a treatment without giving you information, or refusing to give you all relevant information - YOU SHOULD LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AND SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.

Here is a bit more information about

possible end goals you may choose

during therapy.

[informationsorter]

Can DID be caused by therapists? Can DID be caused by seeing it online and in popular media? What about if you know someone who has it - can that make you think you have it?

This post is going to be looking at the article "Iatrogenic and Sociocognitive Models of DID". It has some cool brain scan pics, but a lot of medical jargon which may be intimidating or confusing.

TLDR; My personal interpretation of this article is that there is no basis for assuming that all DID is "made up" by a patient being convinced they have it by either a therapist or social environments.

Below I have quoted a few key points from the article, and have done my best to explain them a little more.

Firstly let's start with some definitions:

Iatrogenic = When a therapist or mental health professional accidentally or purposefully convinces a patient that they have a specific issue/disorder. Tumbly user misachips has offered this extra clarification on the definition of Iatrogenic: “In terms of DID and its myth, iatrogenic often implies the condition is pushed onto the patient by a therapist indeed, but the real definition means that the condition was caused because of medical intervention or treatment! so for example, side symptoms of medication are iatrogenic, hairloss due to chemo is iatrogenic, muscle atrophy after a coma too, etc.” Sociocognitive = When a person begins to believe they have a disorder, or starts experiencing symptoms of a disorder, after being exposed to the disorder/symptoms in a social context. Traumagenic = When a disorder is caused by the patient having experienced trauma. In DID this specifically means when DID is caused by long term or repeated childhood trauma.

"Iatrogenic dissociative identity disorder is DID that results from suggestion from or coercion by a mental health professional."

"Likewise, sociocognitive conditions are those that are caused by internalizing symptoms seen in the media, in friends, in family members, online, or in other social settings."

"While there are cases of both iatrogenic and sociocognitive DID, most cases of DID are thought to be traumagenic, or the result of long term or repeated childhood trauma."

- This article seems to be addressing whether DID is caused by trauma, social influences, or by mental health professionals pushing a disorder on a patient.

It states that all of the above may happen, but it goes on to focus on traumagenic DID. *Note: if you are worried that your disorder may be caused by outside influence such as a therapist or social media, please talk to a (different) therapist about these fears. It's ok to be worried about this, particularly if you are highly suggestible, but you should try to identify whether it is a valid fear or whether it is just denial. Regardless, being open with a trusted and experienced therapist will help you.*

"DID patients have smaller hippocampal and amygdalar glands, something seen in those who were abused as children and have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)"

"... DID cannot be said to be the same as PTSD. Individuals with DID and co-morbid PTSD have larger putamen and pallidum volumes compared to individuals with only PTSD with these volumes being positively correlated with severity of dissociative symptoms."

- While DID patients and child abuse survivors both exhibit the same physiological differences within the brain, DID is not simply "MEGA PTSD!!!".

*Disclaimer*: I don't actually know what putamen and pallidum volumes are, or what they are related to. But the article makes it clear that a patient who has both DID and PTSD will show one result, and a patient who only has PTSD will show a different result.

"There is also evidence that DID is not iatrogenic. Some of the symptoms of DID might become visible only after diagnosis or treatment, but many are present before this point."

"As well, appropriate DID treatment is unlikely to cause additional or worsened dissociative symptoms as it measurably leads to patient improvement. It lowers self-injurious behaviors, leads to fewer hospitalizations, and increases adaptive functioning."

- It’s not unusual for patients to only start noticing or start presenting some symptoms after diagnosis/treatment. I personally believe this is mainly due to increased awareness of the symptoms, and the realisation that certain things are actually signs of abnormal mental health or an abnormal childhood. - You may be scared to think that you have DID, scared that things are going to change or get worse. But the studies here show that there is no reason to believe that that is true. In fact it states very clearly that finding out you have DID and then beginning treatment for it with a good therapist, will make your life better, not worse.

So even if it feels like you're getting worse, it is not likely to be true. If you are feeling overwhelmed, or as though you are taking steps backwards instead of forwards, talk to your therapist about these feelings. Your therapist should work with you to make sure you're only taking on as much as you can handle. (This is true with all therapy, not just for DID.)

"More evidence that DID is neither iatrogenic nor sociocognitive lies in the blend of underlying symptoms that the disorder contains that one would not learn about through the media, the vast majority of professionals, or casual online resources. Before the publication of the study "A New Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder" by Paul F. Dell in 2006, many of these symptoms were unknown, not associated with DID, or not clinically associated with DID, yet the study finds that a strong majority of individuals with DID experience all of the symptoms tested."

- This part talks about how if DID were sociocognitive (created by exposure to social media etc), people would only present with the most well known symptoms. But there are many symptoms that people with DID experience which are not addressed in social media or in entertainment (such as movies). It's basically asking: How could so many different people who don't know each other, have these same symptoms (which aren't shown online or in movies etc) if those symptoms weren't real?

"Finally, it should be noted that some cases of DID are not traumagenic, iatrogenic, or sociocognitive but pseudogenic (factitious or malingered). This final type of "DID" is addressed here. That pseudogenic DID can be distinguished from genuine DID also supports that DID is caused by more than outside influences as it shows that iatrogenic or sociocognitive influences are not enough for an individual to sufficiently feign DID. "

- The article ends by mentioning people who purposefully fake DID. They believe that this further proves that DID is not caused by outside influences (therapist, social media, movies, etc), because someone without DID, who is genuinely trying to fake DID using these sources as a "guide" to faking it, can not fake it well enough. They link another article, which I will link here too. But please note that I have not read this article about "pseudogenic DID".

Now here are the cool bits about the brain scans:

"In none of these studies are individuals without DID able to match the differences between trauma oriented and non-trauma oriented parts even if the control individuals are highly fantasy prone."

- This shows that there is a clear difference between people who have DID, and people who are pretending to have DID. Note: This isn't saying that everyone claiming to have DID should undergo a brain scan to prove it, it is simply stating that they used people without DID who were pretending to have DID in order to see whether the reactions in the brains were the same, or whether there was a fundamental difference between DID and fantasy/acting.

"The same study finds that individuals with DID are not more fantasy prone than the general population, a finding that refutes the idea that DID is caused by fantasy proneness or suggestibility (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012).8 "

- Though it is a common theory that one of the indicators that a child may develop DID/OSDD is an increased imagination, this study did not find that to be true.

All quotes from: https://did-research.org/controversy/iatrogenic.html

[informationsorter]

If you only read ONE blog, make it this one:

https://www.dis-sos.com/ dis-sos.com is a brilliant blog. It is based in factual psychology, and is written in an easy to understand way. The articles are extremely helpful for not only helping you understand what everything means, but also for helping you truly understand how to employ these therapeutic tools. I have full confidence in this blog, as my therapist (who is trained in psychoanalytic therapy, and specialises in childhood trauma) not only approves of this blog, and refers patients to it, but also says it has even helped her comprehension of some of the concepts. I am in no way affiliated with the blog, I do not know the person who writes the blog, and I certainly do not receive any benefit from mentioning the blog. It is simply the most helpful and comprehensive guide to therapy with DID that I have encountered. If you are only going to read one blog, make it https://www.dis-sos.com/.