"have you heard of multiple self theory of consciousness? I can link some stuff if you're interested in actually learning about how plurality is different from CDDs but still a real experience for a large population" i'd like to hear about that, give me the links. i'd also like to know what you think separates plurality from cdds, and how you define them and what the science says about that distinction.
Genuinely, thank you! I love talking. Reading back, this is just an info dump of opinions and quotes. I hope this helps!
The idea of multiple selves developed right alongside Freud's trauma theories. It's old and surprisingly well researched.
It's a theory that's completely separate from CDDs, a nondisordered, natural state of being.
CDDs are trauma based disorders with unique neural biomarkers linking it to trauma. These biomarkers are similar to PTSD but are much larger and firmly noted to have occurred in childhood, during major developmental milestones. One day, this will be used in diagnosis.
No markers, no CDD (though as an aside, I genuinely expect by that point that the DSM will have adopted some form of disordered plurality as something different).
Plurality is anything and everything, endogenic systems, IFS, any of the theories on the unity or multiplicity of the self, theories of consciousness itself, spiritual experiences, people in denial, rpers, on and on and on, it's anyone who chooses to be under the umbrella and people who just don't want to be medicalized. They're allowed to do that.
My favorite quote to start this discussion is:
Baumeister (1998) stated: “The multiplicity of selfhood is a metaphor. The unity of selfhood is a defining fact”. In fact, Baumeister presented no facts to back up his assertion, and so it could just as appropriately be asserted that the unity of the self is a metaphor while the multiplicity of the self is a fact.
Even as alters we have these parts of ourselves, like IFS within IFS. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that some people naturally experience these parts with much more autonomy. And who is that hurting? I support IFS for singlets, it's a very healthy way to perform self care. It took a lot of thought, but these plurals aren't hurting anyone, we just, unfortunately, share terms.
In my opinion, the best way to handle things going forward is to have a community divide of plural vs CDD/system, but I'm not holding my breath. The point is that we can provide accurate information on both rather than just screaming FAKE so that people can decide for themselves which community fits them best. The fact remains that there IS research.
Just not the research you've seen floating around.
Also, in my opinion, in the 90s, the natural multiple and multiple self communities crashed into each other. I think these two communities blended and became one. There is certainly an allure to the idea of DID that may have drawn some of these people to join the natural multiple movement.
I might even go so far as to say that these would have been the original "endogenics", if the term had existed back then. But I think it was coined FOR them, in a roundabout way.
I would also like to point out that some of the things I link will talk directly about these selves conversing autonomously with each other, without amnesia and without trauma. In much of the literature, it's not just a way of viewing yourself, they're describing switches, internal communication, internal worlds, differences that go beyond just "me but different" or "me but not me"-- it's not a single idea, but a door that opens up an entire new world to explore, if you're willing to fall down the rabbit hole.
So, let's look at some actual research and quotes about the multiple self theory (MST).
The earliest source I've been able to access is this, The multiplicity of the normal ego structure, 1954.
It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that unity may be a structure that accommodates mental illness, and that multiplicity of structure may accompany, and indeed be an intrinsic aspect of, the healthy individual. Here we shall attempt to give support to the hypothesis of the manifoldness of the normal individual’s self-experiences and the multitudinousness of the derived stable self-representations. It is proposed to distinguish between the adaptive and maladaptive forms of both singularity and multiplicity of the personality, and more particularly, of the ego structure.
That doesn't mean it wasn't around earlier, direct sources are just scarce, but Freud himself contributed, and so did others during that time, like Berne.
This leads into my next link, A Multiple Self Theory of the Mind, 2012, which discusses the history of the theory and major contributors from all walks of life.
Next, A Multiple Self, 1985.
The essays in this volume consider the question of whether the self is a unity or whether it should be conceived without metaphor as divided - as a 'multiple self'. The issue is a central one for several disciplines.
I talk about this a lot, get out of psychology. These concepts exist in so many fields, philosophy, dreams, consciousness, sociology, anthropology, and somehow even economy.
Next, On Multiple Selves, 2015.
Most of us are aware that we have multiple selves. We adopt different "façade selves" depending on whom we are with. Lester argues that contrary to the popular psychological term, "false self," these presentations of self are all part of us, not false; they simply cover layers of identity. He asserts that at any given moment in time, one or another of our subselves is in control and determines how we think and act.
Here's an interesting one, and much more recent. Having multiple selves helps learning agents explore and adapt in complex changing world, 2023. It'll piss some people off.
These results suggest that having “multiple selves” may represent an evolved solution to the universal problem of balancing multiple needs in changing environments.
These results suggest that the normative principles by which agents have adapted to complex changing environments may also explain why humans have long been described as consisting of “multiple selves.”
Other than that, nothing in that article makes sense to me.
NEXT, The Multiple Self-Aspects Framework: Self-Concept Representation and Its Implications, 2011.
This one a bit more IFS adjacent, but I link it because it directly contrasts itself against other theories, which it emphasizes the importance and reality of. It's just a lot of REALLY good food for thought, with a focus on how memory plays into the concept of multiple selves.
Then, The Multiple Self: Between Sociality and Dominance, 2020.
he further developed the idea of the multiple self by introducing the fruitful metaphor of a person as a community of selves. Namely, we often witness ourselves talking to ourselves, we have internal dialogues, in which one part of us shows support and agrees with the other part or disputes it, criticizes it, disparages it or even rejects it. Also, we may find ourselves having contradictory feelings, desires and expectations, which create the feeling of personal fragmentation and discord. These experiences, familiar to everybody, may be perceived as if we were ‘populated’ by multiple personalities, which have separate construing processes and can form different relationships. The metaphor of the community of self allows connection of the ideas of unity and multiplicity, placing the person at the forefront, in a similar way to Stern (1938) did when describing a person as unitas multiplex – a unity of multiple different characteristics, tendencies, feelings, choices, and directions.
Here's a REALLY new one! The multiple self and psychological openness, 2025.
We distinguish between the unitary self-mode, where individuals perceive themselves as cohesive, stable entities, and the multiple self-mode, where they recognize their diverse, context-dependent aspects. These modes represent fundamentally different ways of experiencing and organizing self-knowledge that can be situationally activated.
A Subself Theory of Personality, 2017.
This also describes the history of the theory, but here's what I found most interesting:
Inner dialogues take place as conversations between various subselves, different
parts of our self, with different distinct personal characteristics.
Another, I'm running out of steam.
THE SELF AS A COLLECTION OF MULTIPLE SELF-ASPECTS: STRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION, AND IMPLICATIONS, 2012.
Multiple Selves:
Expanding Our Notion of Identity, 1998
The Return of Subjectivity: From a Multiplicity of Selves to the Dialogical Self, 2005.
These articles talk about this debate happening back in the 1600s. MST may even be OLDER than CDDs. It's a debate that's been happening for as long as people could ask questions about consciousness.
Throughout history, people have discussed their multiple selves with various levels of autonomy and independence, from basic IFS to systemhood. This isn't new. Endogenic is just the newest term for this phenomenon-- a natural, non trauma based multiplicity.
Now take all this and go in search of more! ❤️
