Hi! I,, have a question with some specific context that could, potentially, spark some conversation.
I’d say its relatively important to the context to note that I’m also a dx DID system, but im an anon, so take of that what u will.
When our system’s body was around 11-12, our system’s host “created” an alter. Basically like the host had an active role in creating him as opposed to, idk, a regular split or something. What we do know is that this headmate/alter of dubious origin, has fronted in traumatic times and took role as primary protector for years until our current primary protector was reintroduced to the host through therapy. It was also how the host established communication internally with “the actual” system so early, before we knew we were a system.
My only question here is would that be considered “endogenic” origins for a headmate? By all means, we are DID system, and only split based on traumas and survival, but *literally* only this headmate/alter has caused internal conflict for the system, but especially the host who created him (and is still around).
The host originally believed that, when we were first diagnosed, there was absolutely no way that we could have DID because of the active creation of that singular alter, which our psychologist acknowledged, but pointed out otherwise, thru a slew of, like, legitimate reasons (its 12am and we leave for a trip soon, my wording isn’t great, but for some reason, I just cant *not* write this ask).
I, unnamed alter in the system, am wondering if active creation in an alter is possible? I guess in general? It was entirely a form of survival for ourselves at the time to make the alter/headmate of dubious origin, he was what the system needed at that time, but we wonder what terminology we would use for him, or what he would be considered, community wise ig. To be blunt, its almost a validation thing in a way.
Our system is anti-endo. We dont believe systems can form from anything other than trauma in formative years, but the active creation thing seems??? Not a normal experience and maybe, like, invalidating to our existence??? We have alters from before he existed, but he was like our ground zero in communication. The alter that helped “bridge the gap”. The host loves him, and he loves the host. They were attached at the hip until the diagnosis because his existence felt inherently invalidating BUT thats not the point and more venting
The host actively made a dude in our head who ended up being a main factor in our survival at the time but because the host *actively made* the dude, as opposed to “normal splitting”, does that make him inherently “endogenic”?
Hi, that's normal! And anyone who says otherwise can fight me. Thank you for sending this, it's really not talked about enough.
CDD systems can and do "create" alters, though it's typically not quite that simple once you get into the subconscious.
Firstly, once the development of the sense of self is interrupted in childhood, you've already completed the step that "tulpamancers" are trying to learn. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to dissociate to that extent once the sense of self is developed (I think they're already highly prone to dissociative tendencies, take from that what you will), but CDD systems are already ten steps into the process and it's not out of the realm of possibility (and in fact, it's highly reported) that CDD systems frequently create alters in a number of different ways, including processes similar to willing and creating alters into existence. People with DID already dissociate really good, it's not shocking that we would be able to will a new member into existence with enough thought and pressure. We're just not thinking of it as something similar to endogenic or created alters until it's pointed out, or we understand that there's something deeper at play.
But that's active creation, and now we get into:
"If there's a need, the brain will supply."
This is more based on the personal interpretation of alters in the process of becoming aware, but can be applied to brand new alters.
One general interpretation is based in denial and a feeling of a lack of control, and is similar to active creation.
It's extremely easy to convince yourself that you did this, purposefully and with intent. That you chose systemhood and that you chose to create this alter. CDDs are caused by factors entirely outside of our control, and people will look for, and find, a sense of control in any way possible.
Including telling yourself that you're doing something consciously, even when you're not (loosely based on the same idea as this).
Which came first, the fragment or the need? Was there already a fragment floating around that you helped to pick a name and appearance, and that contained traits that you needed, whether you consciously knew you needed those traits in your system or not? Or did you realize you needed those things, and a fragment came forward to pick up the role?
It doesn't help that alters can be created from overwhelming situations (not just traumatic situations), and the brain is notoriously bad at letting you know when you're stressed and overwhelmed. Not only that, but alters can take years to make themselves known, making it impossible to pinpoint their creation (unless they know, but they usually don't).
So did you really pick that name? That trait? Or was it already there?
The second interpretation is simply misinterpretation.
I have an alter that took a liking to an OC and became that. Again, which came first, the character or the alter? Does it matter? Was I writing based on an alter that already existed but that I couldn't communicate with? Or did a fragment take a liking to the character and traits? Did I look at those traits and think, "I could really use that right now," and my brain agreed? It would be very easy to misinterpret the entire situation to mean that I created this alter, either by complete accident or purposefully, consciously or unconsciously. Where do we draw the line at "created" alters? Does it need to be active creation? Or creation after the fact based on ideas that you liked and wanted? Did you know you wanted them?
Mod Quill here to mention something: I also have "created" parts. Again, incredibly normal in CDDs. I also have friends with DID who have parts that "came from God" or "walked in" -- and out of all of those parts, they are all traumagenic, because that's how they choose to see themselves.
The fact that the alter is created doesn't make him endogenic, because based on your description, he's still forming due to the trauma that you've experienced. Now, if you want to call him endogenic, because of the creation process, I don't think anyone's going to stop you -- but you shouldn't ever feel the need to label your alters in that way. You are a DID system, simply put, and regardless of the individual causes of splits, you formed from trauma. You should only be labeling the individual splits if you find that helpful for your recovery.
This alter's creation doesn't invalidate your diagnosis, your trauma, or your system in any single way. It's incredibly common, and I fear that syscourse has made it seem like it has to be an endo thing, when it isn't in the slightest.
Thank you to Quill for bringing this back to the most important point. Don't let anyone dictate how you define your system and alters. So long as you're happy and healthy, who cares. That's literally the only thing that matters.
I want to make it very clear that it's not just alter creation that confuses systems, but alters seemingly not connected to trauma at all appearing suddenly or randomly, alters that wake up and immediately go back into dormancy (walk in/out), etc. These are all things that can appear to be endogenic, or mixed origin, but if the basis of your system, the reason you have a system in the first place, is trauma, then everything ties back to that, in the end, and in one way or another.
How you personally interpret your experiences and members, and the labels you use, are uniquely yours.
