#real syscourse

[singtiple]

"'[A]ttention-seekers' have often been framed as a stigmatised outgroup and contrasted with those who self-harm 'for genuine reasons' (Chandler, 2016, 2018; Crouch & Wright, 2004; Steggals et al., 2020). Crouch and Wright (2004) reported adolescent self-harmers' vitriol towards a stigmatised outgroup of perceived 'attention-seekers', leading to competition to be perceived as more authentic. Similar finings were reported in pro-anorexia ('pro-ana') communities, where the pejorative label 'wannarexic' expresses doubt over someone's credibility as genuinely anorexic (Boero & Pascoe, 2012). These attitudes frame disordered identity as a matter of group conformity, where the boundaries of these groups are protected through accusing others of 'faking' (Boero & Pascoe, 2012). This type of stigma, if left unchallenged, could have serious implications on public mental health. In particular, fears of being labelled an 'attention-seeker' can create significant barriers to help-seeking."

Source: ‘Faking it’: Exploring adolescent perceptions of depression (in)authenticity and ‘attention seeking’

[singtiple]

"In terms of differentiating between the terms DID and multiplicity, DID is associated with high levels of distress and reduced functioning within most diagnostic conceptualisations (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). However, many people with multiplicity function well in terms of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment (Ribáry et al., 2017), and appreciate the value of their multiple selves as a coping response to adversity and relational traumas (e.g. Parry et al., 2018a, b). The absence of distress experienced by systems identifying as multiple may suggest that DID and multiplicity vary in experience, and the dominance of DID in research highlights a fundamental limitation in the understanding of multiplicity (Okano, In Press; Trifu, 2019)."

Source: Exploring the Utility and Personal Relevance of Co-Produced Multiplicity Resources with Young People.

[singtiple]

"Not all multiplicity is based in trauma: Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling 'left out of the conversation' and 'unable to access support' or resources. . . . The medicalised language used to describe multiplicity was said to be a barrier to accessing support and information for many people. . . . Respondents shared various positive terms which they prefer, including 'system', 'headmate', 'system member', and 'plurals'. Utilising preferred language, as is true with other areas of mental health research and practice, allows the individual to feel supported, included and visible."

Source: Exploring the experiences of young people with multiplicity.

[singtiple]

Personally I just don’t think that multiple individuals can exist inside a single human brain. I just can’t accept that premise. I can absolutely accept that the human brain can partition itself and create the impression of multiple autonomous individuals because of dissociation in response to trauma. But that’s not separate distinct ‘souls’ or whatever. And as soon as you start asking me to accept past lives and interdimensional soul travel and full worlds existing in someone’s mind where people can experience literal pregnancy and death etc it just… Like I’m sorry I just don’t believe that. And that’s why I don’t believe in endogenic plurality as it is often presented. I don’t believe DID creates entire literal separate human beings either, I think it’s a dissociative disorder. And maybe that disorder can crop up at random sometimes, and in that instance I could get my mind around it, I suppose! But one body = one human consciousness, and nothing is going to convince me otherwise and there is no evidence supporting that to convince me. People can believe what they want but I don’t believe in god or reincarnation either and that doesn’t make me a bigot.

You're not a bigot for not believing in God or reincarnation. But you don't have to share the same spiritual beliefs as someone else to respect theirs and not invalidate them. I see plurality in a very psychological way, myself. But that doesn't stop me from being pro endo and respecting every system's way of seeing themselves. 🙂 Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[singtiple]

People who don't believe it's possible for plurality to exist outside of CDDs:

Can you explain your perspective to me? I don't agree but I'd like to understand your viewpoint. Thank you. 🙂

[syscourse-bot-720796]

​

[syscourse-bot-720796]

​

[syscourse-bot-720796]

​