Ah, also. Exploratory research in a peer reviewed journal.
"Not all multiplicity is based in trauma: Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understaning 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."
Source: Exploring the experiences of young people with multiplicity. Zara Eve and Sarah Parry, 2021.
"Additionally, having a condition such as multiplicity that is not generally validated and recognised in a community can be, in itself, traumatic. Therefore, even if trauma does not precede the development of multiplicity, trauma-informed care would still be appropriate for many young people who seek help for multiplicity. Consequently, a separation of multiplicity and DID within both research and language could help improve understanding and the delivery of care."
Source: Exploring the utility and personal relevance of co-produced multiplicity resources with young people. Sara Parry, Zarah Eve, and Gemma Myers, 2022.
I saw both asks and I'm just gonna reply to both on this one and post the other one without a response for context.
I appreciate you actually bringing sources, genuinely. I was able to look through them, and I think where we’re talking past each other is what those papers are actually claiming versus what people online are often concluding from the information.
I don’t disagree that non pathological experiences involving parts, dissociative states, possession frameworks, or ego states exist. That’s well established. But nothing here demonstrates a distinct neuropsychological mechanism for stable, autonomous identity states forming without dissociation or overwhelming stress. They mostly describe dissociative phenomena across contexts like hypnosis or spiritual practice, discuss cultural interpretations of dissociation, or report self-identified experiences without establishing etiology or any alternative mechanisms involved.
Like when Nijenhuis and Van der Hart mention hypnosis or mediumship, they’re talking about induced, state-dependent dissociation, not structural identity division. Christensen’s paper explicitly lays out alternative explanations for people who report plurality without a trauma history, like unrecognized trauma or relational trauma, and the third option is simply that someone doesn’t meet criteria for a disorder because they aren’t distressed. That’s a diagnostic distinction as opposed to like, a separate formation mechanism if that makes sense.
I think that's one thing where people get mixed up and blur the lines with what non disordered plurality would look like. Like "what about people who don't meet the criteria because they're functional" doesn't imply a different mechanism.
The exploratory studies are interesting but they also rely on self-report, don’t clinically assess dissociation, and openly state that there’s a lack of understanding from participants about development. That doesn’t invalidate people’s experiences at all, but it also doesn’t establish that autonomous alters can form without stress or dissociation.
I think it’s fair to say the literature supports being careful about over pathologizing and about how we talk to people, but I don’t see anything here that supports the broader claim being made online about endogenic alter formation as a distinct mechanism. Like, ig that’s the part I still don’t see compelling evidence for.
And I think that's okay, I can respect that you feel how you do and I would not invalidate the experiences themselves even if I think there are different explanations for what most self identified non disordered plurals claim. I just don't see evidence that supports that someone can develop fully autonomous alters and have the entire makeup of a CDD save for the trauma, because the entire thing functionally revolves around trauma.
If replicated and consistent peer reviewed studies on such a mechanism came out, I think I would reconsider my stance. But again, I genuinely appreciate what you provided and do think it's especially insightful when it comes to understanding that endogenic doesn't always mean "pretending", there are real explanations like regardless of whether you believe there could be a distinct mechanism. Saying "endogenics are all pretending" I think flattens and waters down what's going on in a lot of cases.
Thank you for actually taking the time to lay out sources because I do think there is something meaningful there and that people can conclude from that information what they will.
