lb-lee replied to your post: “UDD system” is such a weird phrase isn’t it ...
Godfuckingdammit I forgot that DDNOS got divided into UDD and OSDD. STOP CONFUSING ME DSM
personally i like the -NOS -> U- + OS- divide. :V it makes sense to say that "not yet sure” and “not quite fitting criteria” are different things. one is just pragmatic, “welp gotta put something on the paperwork,” while the other really is its own sort of specified; DDNOS-1 referred to something specific that was not the same as DDNOS-2, etc.
of course, OSDD-1 still can mean “not yet sure”, since “is multiple” is sufficient reason to boot someone out of UDD and into OSDD-1. i know there are still some folks who pretty explicitly say that there are two types of OSDD-1, “not yet DID [but is “actually” DID and will be diagnosed as such once alters and the extent of amnesia are more recognized]” and “almost/partial/not quite DID [because no amnesia or not fully separate alters]”
(even better, we have seen this divide referred to as -1a vs. -1b before, with the assumption that any significant amnesia means that DID is an appropriate diagnosis, and that the only reason that alters would seem “not fully separate” but still amnesic is because of either 1) too strict/stereotypical a definition of what ‘separate’ means or 2) said alters just haven’t made themselves known yet, especially if the doctor is going by the (now outdated) rule that they must personally observe switching. i can’t find my source right now, but i imagine it’s Paul Dell, seeing as he’s pretty outspoken against the “distinct personalities” language in the DSM)
it’s confusing but boy i could talk about -NOS-type categories for a while :V
- Ace
