not a culture ask, but im curious, what is the difference between c-did and hc-did, if there is any?
I'll answer to the best of my ability :) Our lovely followers - and whoever stumbles upon this post - are invited to correct us and add to this post as they see fit. If corrected, this post will be edited to reflect accurate information!
Content notes and trigger warnings: mention of extreme childhood trauma, RAMCOA/OEA (ritual abuse, mind control, organized abuse / organized extreme abuse), TBMC (torture-based or trauma-based mind control), programming, torture, conditioning, training, groups, group leaders, self harm, punishment, sabotage, and dissociation.
We color coded HC-DID, C-DID, and polyfragmented information to make things easier to differentiate. However, this can appear overwhelming to certain individuals so be warned!
If you don't want an overload of potentially triggering information, here's the gist:
❦ HC-DID requires programming and group reinforcement. There is not an HC-DID system without RAMCOA/OEA and programming.
❦ C-DID may have programming and it's common, but it's not needed. Some level of RAMCOA/OEA or conditioning is required. You'll often see people use C-DID and polyfragmentation interchangeably.
❦ Polyfragmented DID can serve as an umbrella term for HC-DID and C-DID, as both are inherently polyfragmented. But it is also meant for polyfragmented systems who have not gone through RAMCOA/OEA or programming.
To start: both HC-DID (Highly Complex Dissociative Identity Disorder) and C-DID (Complex Dissociative Identity Disorder) are forms of polyfragmentation, which is defined below the cut. They are community based terms, but both have been discussed in research + psychology! HC-DID has been referred to as "Extremely Complex Multiple Personality Disorder" and C-DID as "Complex Multiple Personality Disorder". Contemporarily, the majority of conversation around HC-DID, C-DID, and polyfragmentation exists in the system community.
The information I provide here is a mix of published research on RAMCOA/OEA, how it connects to DID, and self reported differences from HC-DID and C-DID systems we trust. We have C-DID ourselves and will use some of our experience as guidance for the following descriptions.
Polyfragmented systems must meet most or all of the symptoms listed below in order to qualify as polyfragmented, with the landmark symptoms being the first 4 listed. The rest can be loose in presentation and shift depending on that system's traumatic history and how they perceived + compartmentalized it.
❦ It goes without saying that chronic childhood trauma and tertiary dissociation is needed in order to be a system in the first place. A polyfragmented system develops when the trauma is not only chronic, but starts in early childhood, complex, systemic, and deeply ingrained in the child's daily life. It is reinforced consistently. The child has little to no method of escape outside of dissociation.
❦ The system is mostly fragments (parts who only exist to serve one purpose, hold one feeling/memory, and/or who are extremely limited in expression) as opposed to fully fledged parts.
❦ Lower stress tolerance, more splitting, splitting occurs mostly in groups of fragments to manage compartmentalization.
❦ Chronic dissociation (early, reinforced maladaptive disconnection from reality). Difficulty or inability to latch on to non-dissociative coping mechanisms. Dissociation is the automatic stress response, even to low level stressors. Always dissociated to some degree.
❦ Specific and complex part roles.
❦ Complex system structures. This can look like:
❦ Layering/segmentation of parts and the inner world (separating/grouping parts based on their function, program, conditioning, traits, perception, etc. and heavier amnesia barriers between those layers as opposed to the typical spectrum observed between parts; places or objects intentionally created for specific parts to reside). These are specific to individual systems!
❦ A hierarchy between parts and layers (a part, role, system, or layer that has more power over the system than others)
❦ Internal filing systems and a large or complex inner world (often to the point of having multiple worlds, areas that are restricted to certain alters, and areas that can't be accessed at all). Some systems and parts may not have or be able to access an inner world at all, no matter how complex the system is.
❦ May have side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts.
(I included a few examples in the above that include RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmentation on top of non RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmentation.)
The biggest difference (that we've seen) between HC-DID and C-DID is the level of programming. Apart from chronic complex childhood trauma, programming/programmed parts are required in order to be an HC-DID system, whereas not every C-DID system will have programming/programmed parts. It is uncommon for a polyfragmented system to not have some type of trauma related to RAMCOA/OEA, torture, programming, conditioning, war, or something along those lines, but not impossible. As a result, some systems have adopted C-DID as a term for polyfragmented systems who do present with those particular variations of complex trauma, whereas polyfragmented on its own can qualify as both an umbrella term and a separate term for systems who have not experienced those variations.
In other words: the type and complexity of trauma dictates whether a system is complex or highly complex!
Because C-DID can be considered the blueprint for polyfragmentation, I will focus more on the additions that come with the RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning specific to C-DID systems.
❦ Chronic childhood trauma is inescapable. "Typical" ACEs may vary but RAMCOA/OEA, conditioning, and systemic/social/familial reinforcement at some level is always present. The child's life is defined by their abuse and the people or systems perpetuating it (this includes direct/intentional and indirect/unintentional perpetuation). Dissociation feels like their only escape and may be utilized by their abusers.
❦ The system is mostly fragments as opposed to fully fledged parts. Fragments may be specific to conditioning, organized abuse, masking (shell parts), commands/repetitive demands, or anything else that is deemed necessary to fulfill and uphold the perpetrator(s)'s ideals. This is on top of fragments who split to compartmentalize specific pieces of a traumatic event. There may be parts that are a result of programming.
❦ A much lower stress tolerance. Splitting may feel like second nature. Self-induced splits (AKA self-led re-traumatizing) may be present. Splits are always done in groups and may be fragmented as RAMCOA/OEA or conditioning specific parts, even if the cause isn't directly related.
❦ Chronic dissociation is either forced by a separate party or an automatic response to early life, extreme stressors. Heavy switching, blurring, and a full front are common. Sequential parts (parts who trigger one another by fronting and always front in a specific order), parallel parts (parts who front side by side to manage different parts of an event), and backup parts (parts who automatically take the position of a different part if they are unable to fulfill their role) are common. Always dissociated to some extent. Difficulty or complete inability to latch onto non-dissociative coping mechanisms. Will self sabotage, especially when faced with treatment. Dissociation is the automatic response to low level stressors and is often more extreme than a non-RAMCOA/OEA polyfragmented system.
❦ Specific and complex part roles. Often related to RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning, if not a direct result. May include a program or programs and reflect group roles/dynamics.
❦ Complex system structures:
❦ Layering and segmentation is related to or a result of RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning. Parts may be separated into different layers/segments/systems based on their functionality to the group, what trauma they hold (or if they hold trauma at all), whether they are "allowed" to exist or not, etc.
❦ The hierarchy between parts may be a result of programming, conditioning, and/or self-identified evidence for/perceived need. Gatekeepers (or internal handlers, if present) are at the "top".
❦ Internal filing systems are extremely restricted. If programmed, it follows similar function as an HC-DID system. If not, the restrictions are based on the system's personal trauma, perception, and experiences with their RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning.
❦ Side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts are more likely to develop. This is especially in response to triggers, stressors, and traumatic events that are similar to or the same as their experience with RAMCOA/OEA and conditioning.
❦ Chronic childhood trauma is inescapable to an extreme. "Typical" ACEs may vary but programming, group reinforcement, RAMCOA/OEA, and/or TBMC at some level is always present. The child's life, as they know it, is defined by the people or systems perpetuating their abuse (this includes direct/intentional and indirect/unintentional perpetuation, but direct/intentional is significantly more common in HC-DID). Dissociation is not just their only escape, but a tool used to mold them.
❦ The system is mostly fragments as opposed to fully fledged parts. Fragments may hold a command, punishment, mask (shell parts), or some other program to keep every part in line with the perpetrator(s)'s ideal. This is on top of fragments who split to compartmentalize specific pieces of a traumatic event. Multiple parts are a direct result of programming.
❦ A much lower stress tolerance. Splitting often feels like second nature, which can lead to self-induced splits. Splits are always done in groups of fragments. Some of which will adopt or re-adopt other parts' program(s) (whether present, forgotten, or already resolved) even if it's unrelated to the cause of the split.
❦ Chronic dissociation takes the form of almost constant switching and/or a full, blurry front. There are many sequential parts, parallel parts, and backup parts. Always dissociated. High difficulty or complete inability to latch on to non-dissociative coping mechanisms. There may be parts programmed to sabotage treatment. May use dissociation as a form of self or system harm on top of it being the automatic response to low level stressors. Dissociative response to triggers - particularly programmed triggers - is more extreme than it would be in a non-programmed system.
❦ Specific and complex part roles. Often related to programs and group roles/dynamics, if not a direct result.
❦ Complex system structures:
❦ Layering and segmentation is a result of programming. Parts may be separated into different layers or systems based on their functionality within the abusive group, their role in the group, what they accomplish for the programmer(s), etc.
❦ The hierarchy between parts and roles is a result of programming, training, or reinforcement. Parts/roles whose main function is to prevent other parts from acting out, keep program/training loops active, and prevent the system from leaving or questioning the abuse - often called "internal handlers" - will often be the most in charge. Parts/roles who mirror the group leader/programmer(s)'s behavior, speech patterns, and thought process may also be "above" other parts/roles.
❦ Internal filing systems may only be accessed by the group/programmer(s) or restricted to a specific part, role, or layer completely separated from the system. There may be "archives" or "command centers" specifically for programs/training. The inner world (if accessible) may be designed, adjusted, or mapped in accordance with the group/programmer(s)'s ideals. There may be areas within their inner world specifically for punishment, reinforcement, or re-programming.
❦ Side systems, subsystems, sub-subsystems(+), and complex parts are very likely to develop.
Both C-DID and HC-DID systems:
❦ Will experience extreme paranoia, stress, and fear when they are removed from their group/abusers. They may re-traumatize themselves or will remain with abusers to maintain a sense of safety, comfort, or normalcy.
❦ Will go through periods of rebellion followed by intense self/part-led correction. This often comes in the form of exposing or talking about the abuse they experienced, then feeling terrified, being punished by a part, and wiping everything they can so it "didn't happen".
C-DID and HC-DID systems have a lot of overlap in symptom presentation, so it's important to remember that the extent of programming and the complexity of the system's structures are the best determinants for differentiating the two!
I see so many systems seem so overt but that seems so difficult for us. Talking out loud to each other, using proxies right after another to chat with another part. We'd do these things but we feel embarrassed about it for some reason? Like we feel like if we were to do it we'd be called a faker.. I don't know why-
