a lot of people like to begin and end their research into the possibility of endogenic systems existing by merely aggressively pointing to the DSM5 definition of dissociative identity disorder and using this to make some complex claims like:
"dissociative identity disorder is only ever formed by early childhood severe trauma, and so if you don't experience disordered symptoms of plurality, you don't have dissociative identity disorder, therefore you can't be a system."
however, if you ever bothered to look more into psychological literature, as you should before making grandiose sweeping opinionated claims with insufficient research backing, you'd know that the experience of plurality is actually, within the psychiatric community, discussed heavily.
there are plenty of paradigms where you can find things analogous in description to nondisordered, therapist-endorsed plurality, including therapeutic methods of engaging with oneself as plural as a means of Improving oneself: for example, Schema Therapy (often utilized with borderline patients and people with personality disorders), and Internal Family Systems (often utilized in general types of patients, whether or not they were severely traumatized as a child or even as an adult or adolescent)
as a side note, it's very anti-intellectual to have rabidly-held opinions that you bully people online about without even bothering to do a ton of research, especially into perspectives from academics that disagree with your personal very online opinions. any serious practicioner of psychology would be one who is open-minded and seeking to not Confirm a Theory but to learn and form new ideas based on what their clients can teach them.
it's also quite offensive towards survivors of psychiatric abuse to insist upon the psychiatric system of diagnostics as the end-all-be-all of one's existence, and it smells like major bootlicking to only ever allow oneself and others to be ~valid~ If an authority confirms it. it's not like the DSMs are these perfect encapsulations of everything ever that could happen psychologically, things are added and removed all the time, and those actions often accrue significant behind-the-scenes debate in the academic sphere, where people with write papers on why they think something should or shouldn't be there. remember, the DSM is simply supposed to be a Tool that Guides clinicians in order to help them distinguish certain phenomena from others, but at the end of the day not only is it Not supposed to focus on nondisordered manifestations of behaviors, but it's also not made to reductively simplify any active debate in psychiatry merely because one thing is canonized a certain way, just so you can be Right Online™
anyway. in schema therapy, schemas are said to be parts of people that hold certain typified negative self-belief systems, and patients are encouraged to both label them and speak to or as them, in order to convince their parts of new and more healthy or productive modes of thinking, rather than getting triggered into letting the schema take over and give them negative thoughts and emotional issues.
these parts are understood within the literature to be natural to everybody, because everyone compartmentalizes into belief + emotional structures like these; what makes them 'not dissociative identity disorder' is merely the fact that these parts do not cause amnesia when taking over the core self, and that they are often identified as 'parts' of the primary person, rather than fully separated other people with distinct consciousnesses. nonetheless, this is one of many examples of the parts work methodology wherein the self is casually understood to be multiple or have subpersonalities or parts within psychological literature, and that fact is then taken towards the conclusion of using this experience in a healing-oriented way.
here is an example of schema therapy, an excerpt of A Client’s Guide to Schema Therapy
by David C. Bricker, Ph.D. and Jeffrey E. Young, Ph.D.
who are from the Schema Therapy Institute;
moving on, there is my other example: internal family systems. in IFS, clients are encouraged by their practitioner to personify and then actively dialogue with their various emotional states and common modes, and also to look for particular styles of parts already well-known by the IFS paradigm such as 'firefighters' and 'managers,' which are two different kinds of protector parts. with IFS becoming popularized nowadays, more and more laypeople are now becoming comfortable with the idea that they have psychological parts, which can be parts of their personal Self or parts that exist within them and hold certain emotional functions, despite perhaps not experiencing the typical heavy dissociative states definitive of disordered types of multiplicity like DID.
here are some excerpts from a book called The Others Within Us, by Robert Falconer, with a foreword by Dick Schwartz, the founder of IFS, as well as many high praise reviews from members of the psychiatric community for his writing, which breaks new grounds and is very in-depth and thorough.
here he discusses needing to have an open mind towards phenomena that are not well-studied yet, and learning to humble himself in order to do so even as a trained clinical trauma counselor in his 60s and 70s at the time of studying and eventually writing this book.
first of all, take note of his discussion of the contestation of even PTSD when they were trying to get it canonized in the DSM. an entire movement including political pressure had to be formed just to get ptsd into the literature. nowadays nobody on this website would (hopefully) contest the validity of ptsd as an experience people could have, but back then, people had to hold their ground against the psychiatric system and even the government just to prove that their experiences deserved to be taken seriously. don't think that this was the olden days either, because the academic world still tends to hold tight to its current state and not be welcoming towards experiences outside its own paradigms, so its good to keep in mind that there are histories and politics going into the making of all this psychological literature, with more room yet for even further and more uncommon experiences to be discussed.
second of all, note that he says that to clinicians working even with people with MPD/DID, it became apparent that the parts structure could be normal for people, beneficial, and even healthy, and that it was simply the severely dissociative aspects of it that they would work to heal, rather than viewing the entire experience of plurality as inherently disordered or solely a product of trauma.
i hope its clear by now that there's a lot of discussion surrounding this issue, but that plenty of it involves the normalization of nondisordered plurality, that plurality can be even healthy and a good, therapist-approved means of self-exploration for people, and that you should not cherry-pick literature while using intellectually dishonest argument techniques online.
endos are valid imho. i myself am a dissociative system, but at least i don't claim that my opinion is the standard opinion based on just that, i actually try to do my research. hopefully this was interesting to you, and please don't discourse on my post. kthxbai
17 notes
·
View notes
Someone in our discord found this helpful, so we're posting it here with a bit of added wording.
You can be incorrect about your experiences but that doesn't make you fake, it just means you misunderstood either what you were feeling or what a term meant. And that's okay as long as you don't lie once you know you're not a [insert identity here]. You're never morally wrong for being incorrect. Faking is a conscious choice, being wrong about your experiences is not.
You're not faking if you don't sit down and think "how can I make this seem legit" or "I want to pretend to be this today". It can feel bad and confusing and all brands of horrible when you realise you were wrong about a label you placed upon yourself, but it's more beneficial to you and everyone else to admit that you were wrong, you're able and allowed to make mistakes just as anyone else is, and now you can learn from them and know yourself better.
No one knows what they are from the moment they're born, give yourself some space and time to relax and not get caught up in worrying if your experiences actually fit into a nice little box or not. In the end, they don't even have to fit into anything.
664 notes
·
View notes
"Why aren't we seeing widespread plural acceptance yet?"
Guys... for thousands of years, plurals have kept completely to ourselves out of fear of being tortured for demonic possession or locked away in insane asylums.
The first plural communities and the term "plural" itself in reference to multiple agents in one body didn't start until the 90s.
The communities were largely hidden away, not interacting with most of the mainstream internet until the early 2010s.
The first studies into the plural community didn't start until the back half of the 2010s.
Pluralkit wasn't made until 2018, and many singlet-run servers have already adopted it to make their spaces more accepting of systems.
The Plural Association wasn't founded until 2020, just 4 years ago.
2023, this year, saw the very first time a system's system name, "The Redwoods," was used as the authors of an academic paper. Something that I hope, while remarkable now, can become the norm.
Yes, acceptance is slow. It can be hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel sometimes. It can be hard to recognize history as it's happening. But make no mistake, history IS happening. Progress is being made.
We've hit some major milestones in a relatively short time and this is only the beginning!
954 notes
·
View notes
The Plural Community Needs to Write More Essays and Make More Resources
This has been a pretty big push in the alterhuman community, but hasn't quite reached the plural community yet. So
Systems: Write about your experiences! Post them!
It doesn't have to be good or coherent, but we want to see more experiences that aren't just bland, blanket positivity posts or term coining with zero substance. Some of our favorite writings we've read have had poor grammar and disjointed paragraphs!
Reasons to write about your experiences:
It can make people who have that experience both realize they're not alone and learn ways they can explore that experience
It can be education for people who don't experience that so they can learn what it's like
It gives more potential for citation for those who are making more comprehensive resources
They can be used several years down the line to track trends and events within the plural community
Also want to combat anti-endos? Write about your experiences. Humanize yourself (for lack of a better term). Create solidarity with others and encourage them to be out about themselves. Don't let psychiatric texts, syscourse rants, and simple definitions be the only information about your group!
We'll tack on what we're interested in seeing, but feel free to reblog and add anything too:
Guides! Guides on how your system does things, or guides that can help other systems
How plurality intersects with other disabilities or neurodivergence
Headspace tours, art about your headspace, collages
The effects drugs or medication has on your system
Non-traditional roles, or even how traditional roles do their day to day tasks
Different types of plurality intersecting (i.e. systems who fit more than one of DID, endogenic multiplicity, medianhood, soulbonding, etc)
Spirituality and religion intersecting with plurality
Seriously, whatever you want to talk about
357 notes
·
View notes