37 | NB | They/Them | Married | Median-ish System Just a (collective) furry nerd on the internet talking about the random BS going on in our mind. 22 of us (for now)!
Hi! Hello! I'm kind of new to all of this, and wondering how "head spaces" work. I've been wanting to visualize my headmates but it feels weird creating "designs" for them.
Headspace 101
A lot of people describe headspace as an imagined location inside of a person or system's head (but see the footnote).
I like describing it a little differently. To me, headspace is what the inside of your head is like as a place or tool. Maybe you get to decide what that place/tool is like, or maybe it feels like it's already there, but that's the essence of what a headspace is.
Every headspace is a little different. There's no "standard" here. Headspace can be anything from a blank void to a vivid world, cartoonish to hyper-realistic, unchanging to never-quite-the-same. Some systems even have more than one headspace at the same time.
Depending on who you ask, you might see headspaces referred to as "inner worlds", "wonderlands", "dreamscapes", or a handful of other terms. They're all essentially the same thing, but different parts of the plural community tend to use different names for the idea.
What if I can't visually imagine?
Headspace doesn't have to be seen with your visual imagination. Some people don't have vision in their headspace, but they may be able to use sound, touch, or smell to explore it. They may have additional senses that allow them to navigate as well, such as an intuitive feeling about where objects or people are.
Other people do not have sensory headspaces at all, but they may have a metaphor for how their mind works that could be considered a headspace (e.g. "when I try to remember someone, it feels like I flip through a Rolodex inside my head. I don't imagine it, but it feels like it happens somewhere in there").
You might even be able to try navigating between the raw concepts or ideas of things- you don't have to perceive a chair to have the impression of one existing conceptually.
Why bother with it?
Headspace has a lot of theraputic uses. Even if you're not openly plural, you might have already visited a headspace if you've been in therapy: there's a "happy place" exercise that's sometimes taught for emotional regulation. The exercise asks you to visit a calm place inside your head to soothe yourself.
Headspaces have been used to help improve emotional regulation, system communication, and co-consciousness. Imagining a shared meeting space inside your head can get system members in contact with each other and support group discussions in a safe, contained environment. It can make it easier to learn about each other, too.
Headspace can also be used to work with system mechanics: you might have a "front room" that people can enter to control your body, for example, or a library that contains your memories for easier access. You might find secrets hidden behind locked doors or buried underground. The weather might have something to say about your mood or state of mind. Headspace can be a pretty powerful tool if you find the right metaphors for how your system works!
For example, you might try creating a movie theater that plays a live feed of your body's senses, making it easier for people to "tune in" and stay present while someone else is in control. This can help reduce amnesia.
Some systems might enjoy having a headspace for system members who can't take control of their external life very often- having a second life "inside" can be a way to stay present and meet some needs. Larger systems often seem to benefit from this.
Some people use their headspace as an escape from a stressful or traumatic external life, though this can backfire and become compulsive- be careful and weigh your risks if you decide to do this.
Quick aside: not all systems want or have a headspace. You don't need a headspace to be a system, and you can function perfectly fine without one. Do what works best for you.
If you do want a headspace but you're struggling to find or make one, then the the following articles might help:
On Building Headspace
Building Headspace, Aphantasia Edition
Our own article on various ways to make or find a headspace
Non-Visual Headspaces
Headspace Immersion (good for building sensory imagination skills)
Headmates in Headspace
Good news: you don't have to design your headmates' appearance. Some systems are able to do that (it's pretty common in tulpamancy spaces), but designing your headmates' forms for them is not a requirement. They can probably pick for themselves.
How do you get your headmates to show you what they look like in headspace?
Ask them to join you there and be open to what you see. Seriously, it can be that easy. They may already have their own appearance. Trust whatever shows up. If it's "wrong", then they'll probably change it to fit them better.
Give your headmate a placeholder form to control- something simple works well, like a ball of light. Think of it like giving them a blank canvas. Allow them to do whatever they'd like to their form from there.
You might consider having them use character creator tools, drawings, etc. to make self-portraits and explore what they want to look like. If they can't front, then see if you can find a way to get a description or mental image to draw out. They might be able to tell you what options to choose.
They don't have to look humanoid, or even like animals. Some folks show up as plants, inanimate objects, abstract concepts, disembodied voices... Let it be weird if it's weird.
Designing a Headspace
Some systems find that they already have a headspace, but this isn't universal. There are plenty of systems out there that need to make their headspace from scratch. Even if you already have a headspace, making your own could still be helpful, especially if your headspace is hostile; you might benefit from making a second, safer space to use as a "home base".
Luckily, the tulpamancy community has made an art form of headspace creation, and there are plenty of guides to making headspaces ("wonderlands") that are still useful even if you've never touched tulpamancy in your life. There's advice on improving your visualization skills (ditto) and immersing more deeply, too.
There's a reason that we tend to recommend that people look at resources outside of their personal band of experiences. There's still useful information in there even if you aren't the target audience.
If you'd rather look elsewhere, then there are also a handful of resources about headspace aimed at non-tulpamancy systems and singlets. Here's an essay that goes in-depth, an article on changing your headspace, a book that has a section about headspaces in disordered systems, and a class you could take about headspace landscaping.
If you just want to look at one thing and get it over with, then here's an infographic that's pretty helpful as a starting point.
Some Considerations
If you're able to design your own headspace, then there are a few things that you might want to keep in mind.
Who gets to design the space? If you're in a system, then headspace is often a shared space, and letting everyone contribute to it helps ensure that everyone is comfortable. It also makes it a bit less demanding on your mental energy in our experience, as it means that your headspace isn't "running" on just one person's perpetual effort.
What do you want to do with your headspace? Are there any specific goals that you want to accomplish by making one? What do your headmates want from it? How can you structure your headspace around those goals?
How complex does it actually need to be? Your headspace doesn't have to be the size of a planet, and you might be fine with a blank void- some systems find that running a larger or more complicated headspace takes more effort than it's worth. That said, if you keep noticing that you need something and it's not there, then you might consider building it into your headspace.
How open is the space? A headspace with a lot of walls and closed doors sometimes reinforces memory barriers or blocks communication. A more open headspace might make it easier to stay aware of each other or make contact, but some people may prefer more privacy, and some system members might be unwilling to say hello if they don't have their own space. Finding a good balance goes a long way.
Does the space have a way to warn you if something is wrong? Some systems find that their headspace seems aware or autonomous, and it may help warn them about problems. Even if your headspace isn't self-aware, it can be helpful to have some sort of alarm system that people can use when they need support.
How comfortable is the space for everyone? System dynamics can show up in headspace, and sometimes the person that's been pushed away by the rest of the system is shoved into an imaginary swamp or trash pit. Moving these people to nicer places (with their permission!) can free up a lot of space to work with them and change your relationship- and if nothing else, they shouldn't have to live in a hole if they'd rather be somewhere else.
Is it helping you? Headspace is a tool. If the tool isn't serving you, then it's okay to rework or discard it. Just check with your system first. A headspace may not be useful to you, but the rest of your system might feel differently.
Footnote:
Some systems experience their headspace as existing outside of their head. They may experience it as being another realm or universe of its own, and themselves as visitors from that realm.
The intersection between visiting headspace and spiritual experiences can get very blurry for some folks. Don't rule it out if it's too "woo-woo" to fit expectations- lean into the woo and see where it goes.
We also stumbled into a neat survey about headspace access in systems (and headspaces in general) while pulling out links. You might find it interesting.
just feels like an enchanted weapon is redundant? o.k. congratulations you have an extremely sharp sword, you can disembowel people. equally okay, you have a (grey legal area) enchantment that can magnetize the iron in your opponent's bloodstream. either one is great!
both at the same time tho? well now that feels like u just don't trust the workmanship u've invested in
I wish humans had monkey tails (most likely tail we'd have ngl) because it would be so cute. There's an alternate world out there where people are dying their tails and buzzing patterns into them and getting tail accessories and tail piercings. God could you imagine
Endos are so stupid to me because the fuck you mean you can have the trauma disorder..
Without the trauma bit.
Like. its a trauma disorder for a reason??
And then they sit there and go tee hee tee hee i have friends in my head :) they're so silly and we're all best friends :). Having memory gaps? Whats that? Having *any symptoms* other than alters? Nahhh
Bring back roleplaying and stop larping disorders.
It's almost like, they're not doing what you're claiming they do. It's as if, symptoms and experiences exist in non-pathalogical forms, without requiring a disorder.
You don't appear to know/understand what:
-An endogenic system is (not someone claiming to have DID without trauma)
“It was and still is horrible to see the misinterpretation of these terms, considering that we ourselves are survivors of abuse. “Endogenic” wasn’t created to mean “DID without the trauma”. It was created to mean systems that felt their plurality was due to a neurodivergence, from a psychological cause other than DID/OSDD, from some sort of spiritual cause, with a friendly outlook towards tulpamancy or soulbonding. Literally, it’s inclusive of any and all systems or plural folk that do not attribute their plurality to trauma. It has nothing to do with pretending to have a clinical disorder, or mocking anyone. It is simply a single word for many, many ways to be plural.“
"Multiplicity experiences ‘just happening to develop’ was a common narrative, often noted by participants as being “endogenic multiplicity”, as opposed to “traumagenic multiplicity” which the community often refer to those whose experiences have a traumatic origin. Endogenic in this context describes people’s experiences which do not have a basis in trauma. This is often used as a catch-all term to describe the various other specific reasons which are not focused on trauma. [] The understanding presented within this research relates to the notion of ‘endogenic’ multiplicity; people who do not have trauma histories that are of relevance. Participants noted that for some, there was history of trauma, but they did not feel that their trauma was the origin of their multiplicity, and instead felt that they would be a multiple system regardless of their background. Christensen (2022) indicated that endogenic forms of multiplicity are distinct experiences, which concurs with the present project. They argued that endogenic multiples often have more “elaborate inner worlds, with relationships rich in detail where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as awareness to where they do not have access and why” (p. 3). This echoed respondent’s narratives, who discussed their awareness of other selves, the shared memory space, and ability to navigate the internal world. Christensen went on to note “…often the development of the inner world and relationships between parts is something that plurals enjoy and find soothing, which is distinguished from those with dissociative disorders, who are generally phobic of both their inner world and interaction with other parts” "
"Then there are “natural” or “endogenic” systems. Some say that they were just always multiple people, without ever having experienced childhood trauma of the sort that is generally believed to be the precipitating factor for DID and without having intentionally and effortfully created headmates in the way that tulpamancers do; other natural systems say that while they have experienced such trauma—just as have many singlets—they were already multiple by that time. Natural systems’ causal origins could perhaps just be some kind of neurobiological difference (or abnormality); alternatively, several systems I spoke to expressed the belief that authors may sometimes inadvertently create headmates in the process of vividly imagining fictional characters (see, on this note, Taylor, Hodges, and Kohányi [2003]). Note that this could be viewed either as inadvertent tulpamancy or—from the standpoint of a narrative account of the self—as just the same sort of process by which a singlet brain “creates” one person (Dennett 1992)."
"Countering the clinical view, others have decried what they allege are attempts at the medicalization of plurality. This position is well represented within the plural community, where many ‘endogenic’ systems refute clinical expectations of underlying trauma. Further, even among trauma-based systems, many experience no distress or impairment on account of their plurality, and thus neither consider themselves to be disordered, nor see integration as a therapeutic goal. While such understandings undoubtedly originate within the plural community itself, they can also increasingly be found in academic literature; recent treatments of plurality have viewed it as non-pathological and phenomenologically-distinct from dissociative identity disorder. Despite this, existing research on multiplicity-spectrum experiences is often undermined by imprecise definitions and mistaken understandings that conflate non-pathological manifestations of plurality with those properly described by dissociative disorders, obscuring the scope and applicability of such research, and of its findings. In consideration whereof, further reference to ‘plurality’ in this article shall consider only holistic, non-pathological manifestations of the phenomenon."
-Plurality, multiplicity, and systemhood are (not the same things as a complex dissociative disorder)
"Some multiples with DID experience themselves as being psychologically multiple but do not seem to believe that they are; many identify, in some ultimate sense, with all of their “parts”—or, if they really don’t identify with them, they don’t, at least, view them as persons. Note that this may not be because of, say, any differences in basic phenomenology between plurals and non‐plurals with DID. The classic clinical perspective, after all, is that DID involves a single fragmented person, rather than a multiplicity of genuine people, and that healing consists of the progressive integration of this person into a psychic whole, and many human beings with DID have adopted this clinical perspective. This perspective is of course precisely what plurals reject. Many multiples with DID therefore are not plurals. Conversely, there are plurals who do not have DID. Of those plurals who don’t have DID, many once met diagnostic criteria but no longer do, while remaining multiple. They may cease to meet criteria because they no longer meet the distress/impairment criterion; on clinicians’ parts, the judgment as to whether or not a multiple merits the diagnosis of DID will probably especially often concern whether the client’s multiplicity per se is impairing them. But plurals may also not meet diagnostic criteria because they no longer meet the amnesia criterion as the latter is framed, since multiple headmates may share their knowledge and experiences with each other. Some plurals identify with the diagnosis to the extent that they believe that their system was produced by trauma—a major factor in the etiology of DID—but claim that they never strictly met diagnostic criteria.”
"Plurality and dissociative identity disorder are not exactly the same. Being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. Many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves although dissociative identity disorder and plurality are frequently associated with trauma, there are those who are plural and report no history of trauma. [] Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis [DID] and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not.”
"Not all multiplicity is based in trauma: [] 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. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured.”
“Findings were consistent with preliminary research exploring the experience of emerging multiplicity as its own distinct experience, outside the lens of clinical criteria. This included the understanding that those who identify as multiple can, and often do, live well as a member of a system comprising of multiple selves. Participants discussed having awareness of other system members internally, the importance of developing positive communication between selves, and the utility of sharing the body with members who wish to front.”
"Dissociative identity disorder and depersonalization–derealization have attracted research and clinical interest, facilitating greater understanding. However, little is known about the experience of multiplicity of self outside of traumagenic or illness constructs. Consequently, this systematic review explored how people identifying as having multiple selves conceptualize their experiences and identity. [] Multiplicity can encompass various presentations as described in this review. Continuum within this context can be defined as a range of experiences that involve similar characteristics from ‘subclinical’ expressions to clinically significant symptoms, which are typically observed in individuals diagnosed with disorders such as DID. The experiences of those who identify as multiple vary widely from distressing and life threatening when identities lack communication and engage in harmful behaviours, to life saving or enhancing through internal support and positive relationships."
"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. However, many people with multiplicity function well in terms of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment, and appreciate the value of their multiple selves as a coping response to adversity and relational traumas. 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.”
"Plural identity is a self-reported identity, not a specific clinical diagnosis. Some, but not all, plural people dissociate, or have a psychiatric diagnosis of dissociation such as dissociative identity disorder (DID), or other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD). There is a diversity of experiences within plurals/systems, such that members of a system may have different gender identities and salience of gender; ages/experience of age; perceived internal appearances; varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts; and complex interrelationships with other system members."
"A subset of scientific literature recognizes that experiences of multiplicity manifest in non-pathological presentations, and has found value in a holistic or non-pathological approach to dissociation. A recent literature review by Eve, Heyes, & Parry conceptualized a continuum of multiplicity experiences ranging from nonpathological multiplicity to clinical DID. They noted that professional ignorance of nonpathological or subclinical multiplicity resulted in the over-medicalization of participants’ experiences. [] The present study uses the term ‘plurality,’ which emerged from the advocacy community of multiples, and recently has been incorporated into the scientific literature. This newer, more inclusive term describes a broad range of pathological and non-pathological multiplicity, denoting those who have more than one person or entity sharing one body as a ‘plural system.’. While the term ‘plural’ includes those in clinical distress and diagnosed with a dissociative disorder (DID or OSDD), authors have noted that many identifying with plurality found ways to live well with dissociation or did not experience distress from plural experiences.”
"As for those who may identify as Plural but report no trauma history, there is valid concern on several counts. One, is that reports of Plurality without traumagenic origin could undermine the most recent research that defends DID as a trauma-based disorder against those who have dismissed it for far too long, despite so much research and evidence already. However, even within the Plural community, Plurality is a broader concept than DID, and that is understood by Plurals who claim no trauma history. Furthermore, the research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity. Reinders’ (2020) research demonstrating diagnostic capability with fMRI differentiates already between DID and personality disorders, as well as DID and malingering, as do the common assessments available for dissociative disorders. Distinguishing between the two does not need to invalidate either."
-What a mental disorder actually is (a collection of symptoms that cause distress, and the same symptoms also exist separately without distress)
"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above. [] The DSM-5 wording indicates that mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or impairment. The word ‘usually’ may be technically accurate, in that on rare occasions, a mental disorder is listed in DSM-5, and there is no ‘clinical criterion’. However, given that psychiatric symptoms are often on a continuum with normality, the clinical criterion is one key way of providing a relatively valid and reliable marker of underlying dysfunction, so lessening the risk of false positives and over-medicalization.”
“It can be boiled down to several categories. 1. DID and OSDD as defined by DSM-5 - which require distress and dysfunction. Neither of these require trauma by DSM-5 rules but there virtually always is trauma. 2. Other DSM-5 dissociative disorders. 3. People with parts and trauma but no distress or dysfunction. 4. People with parts but no trauma, and no distress or dysfunction. - Like everything in DSM-5 there are mild versions that don't meet full criteria and don't have distress or dysfunction. One of the problems in the discussion is that people often have fixed ideas and rules about 'how it has to be' - unfortunately for them, the real world doesn't always follow those rules.”
”What you’re describing is much more somebody who is emitting symptoms consistent with Dissociative Identity Disorder, and without interviewing her, I would wonder if that’s what’s occurring and this creates a way that she can experience herself without distress. But again, if she is not distressed, by definition it’s not a disorder.”
“It's when they are unable to meet their obligations in real life and are unable to advance their goals in life, when they are experiencing internal strife and conflict and are paralyzed and unable to conduct their lives effectively [that it’s a disorder]. That's in the functioning domain. That's one criteria, a very important criteria. Scholastic, academic, work, family relations, functioning and all that, if it's not impaired, then there's no problem. That's the objective criteria. And then the subjective criteria is distress. So if you're not bothered by multiplicity in the sense that you don't feel that you're being taken over against your will, if you're not losing time, if there's no depression and anxiety associated with this disorder, if some parts are sort of leaking distress to other parts. That subjective criteria is another important indication that one needs help. But in other situations where these two criteria are not met, a person can be completely dissociative in the sense that they are functioning as a system and still not meet even the DSM criteria. Because in the DSM, for almost each and every diagnostic entity there is a condition that it must impair functioning or create distress. And unless this condition is met, then there is no diagnosis.”
something that definitely has been happening my whole life but i just realized today; Did you know Chronic Pain Affects My Dissociative Disorder who'd've thunk
Human relationships are not transactional but they are reciprocal, which I think many of you with your ‘i don’t owe anyone anything’ shtick are too happy to forget
Transactional: everything has to be exactly 50/50 all the time, pay me back for the £5 sandwich or buy me something worth exactly £5, I refuse to make an effort for you if there’s nothing in it for me
Reciprocal: you were there for me when I needed help, and I’m going to do the same for you, it doesn’t matter if one of us needs more or is capable of less, because the point is not equivalent exchange but mutual care
This fucked me up, because i was convinced the world ran on transactional relationships, because most folks around me would only help you if there was something in it for them, and the instant there was nothing, that support evaporated.
I was convinced i was doing it too, putting up walls the instant someone revealed their esteem was based transactionally.
Now i realize that's just. Cutting off those transactional relationships, because i will happily go out of my way for folks who show the same care with no regard for personal gain, with the similar goal of just helping.
Dana White is the head of the UFC. He is buddy-buddy with Vince McMahon, head of the WWE. Vince McMahon is the husband of Linda McMahon, the head of the Department of Education. This tracks severely.
We all know that a large number of the convicts sent to Australia back in the day were convicted of "stealing a crust of bread to feed my little sister" type crimes but today I learned that a lot of them were sent for stealing their workhouse uniforms. By which I mean they were from Victorian workhouses, which were desperate, exploitative and abusive places on purpose (to encourage people to stop being poor), they decided to take that encouragement and try to make it on their own, left (which they were allowed to do)... and were arrested, imprisoned and eventually sent as convict labour to Australia because they were wearing the uniform they were given when they entered the workhouse (their own stuff was usually all confiscated when they arrived and workhouses didn't pay wages at this time so there was no way for them to get any other clothes). Imagine quitting your job at a fast food restaurant and then you get sent to a distant colony to die tilling fields for the military because you wore your stupid little uniform hat home.
