#theory of structural dissociation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sysmedsaresexist · 4 months

Text

⚡️News Flash⚡️

ToSD and the ICD - 2023

Autopilot functionality and self-destructive behavior in patients with complex dissociative disorders-A qualitative study

"One important theory of [DDs] is the [ToSD]. It distinguishes between [EPs] that are linked to traumatic memories and [ANPs] functioning in daily life. The 11th revision of the [ICD] newly introduced the diagnosis of [P-DID], acknowledging this theory by including components of it into a clinical diagnostic system."

It's a really interesting article that looks at those with OSDD/DDNOS/P-DID. It also has this amazing quote about functionality and distress, which everyone should read.

Please give it a go, despite the length.

---

In relating to themselves, most participants reported a functional, conformist behavior that we named “autopilot functionality,” one key feature being an explicit outward orientation of the patients, meaning that they tended to focus on other people’s needs rather than their own.

I did not exist. My environment existed. (P9)

From the participants’ point of view, parents played an essential role in the development of this outward-oriented behavior. The participants described that from an early age, they had the impression that their wishes and needs were unimportant. Rather, they felt that they had to conform to the wishes of their caregivers. This led to feelings of guilt and a constant suppression of their own needs and feelings.

The way I grew up… it was rather that I have to take care of my parents and what I want doesn’t actually matter… the main thing is that my parents are well and everyone else is well because otherwise… so I just always had feelings of guilt. […] So the relationship with myself, it was always rather oriented towards the others. (P3(2))

In this context, the participants also reported that they had learned to have little compassion for themselves, so that it felt normal for them to continue to function even though they were feeling bad.

There I am not very sympathetic with myself. That comes from the time when I was a child and for example, I can remember it well, my grandma had died and the teacher then said that I don’t have to do my homework and then I somehow didn’t understand what the one thing had to do with the other. And I think somehow that my mother is also a bit like that, that you still have to do everything somehow, even if it makes you feel bad. (P6)

The outward orientation learned from the caregivers later spread into various areas of life and affected relationships with children, friends, and colleagues. For many participants, work was a field in which they were very functional but often ignored physical needs like hunger, thirst, sleep, or pain in order to (over)fulfill the requirements of their workplace.

You start [work] at 12:30 p.m. and then you have to eat before or after, because there’s no break for six hours of work and then I just comply with the shift. […] And then I was with colleagues who said: “How that, you don’t take breaks, come take a break with us now.” And I said: “I’m not entitled to a break.” (P6(2))

The participants felt enormous pressure to maintain a façade to the outside. This could mean performing well in school or at work, or taking special care of their appearance so that nobody would realize something was not okay.

I always knew that I am not allowed to neglect my body, I have to take care, I need to wash myself, I need to brush my teeth because it’s really dangerous if someone sees that you are not feeling well. That has always been clear to me. (P4)

This mechanism of maintaining a façade had disadvantages for the participants. Because they looked so “normal” and continued to function, it was difficult for those around them to understand that they were not well, which made the participants feel isolated and not understood.

The worse I felt, the more I worked, and almost no one outside understands that. (P1)

The constant focus on functioning for others was exhausting for the participants and made it hard to develop a sense of self. For one participant, it even felt like she had to find a new identity after therapy, because she realized that she had only functioned for others.

Interesting actually that one doesn’t notice that at all. That one is actually only functioning and functioning, but functions really well, because one lives and works for other people. That was a very, very sad insight for me that I said, now I have half of my life behind me and had to realize that now I am born again, and I will look for my new identity with my new personality […]. Because before that, I didn’t feel any pain, I didn’t have any boundaries, I was perfect in everything I did, of course. And now? (P9)

Participants described that one factor that helped them to function was their lack in perceiving feelings and bodily signals. For example, they had difficulties adequately perceiving hunger, thirst, and pain. Consequently, participants compared themselves to robots or machines that worked well but were unable to be in connection with themselves.

In the end, I didn’t feel at all whether the life I’m leading right now is actually what I want or whether I’m just doing it, just to do it, let alone that I felt anything. It was really only getting up, going to work, doing therapy, going home again, working, and somehow it was just like that. I think a robot captures it quite well, well programmed, but that’s just it. (P8(2))

As already described above, these difficulties with the perception of stimuli from within the body also made it difficult for the participants not to overburden themselves. They often only noticed that they had overstepped their boundaries through extreme physical signals (e.g., migraine and sleep disturbances). They also described overburdening as a strategy to distract themselves from complicated feelings and to avoid conflicts.

I was just astonished. Shit why do I have such a migraine now? Or why am I so exhausted and empty…? So, I always had the feeling that I had to do something, maybe to distract myself and I didn’t want anyone to feel offended or somehow get into a fight with me, so I preferred to do it and think to myself, okay, I have a fever of 40 °C, but I’ll do it anyway. (P7)

#syscourse #pro syscourse conversation #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #did #osdd #actuallydissociative #actuallydid #actuallyosdd #actually traumagenic #debunk #research #weird that the icd would include it if it held no merit

46 notes · View notes

hauntedselves · 11 months

Text

The Continuum of Dissociation

[Image description:

An infographic describing the continuum of dissociation and the theory of structural dissociation. From left to right (more integrated parts to less integrated parts), are:

Altered states - Altered states of consciousness: Includes things like daydreaming, normal absorption, 'highway hypnosis', flow states, meditative practices, and imaginary play

Primary dissociation - PTSD / single incident trauma: Where a person has what can be described as a 'Going on with normal life' part that does daily life, as well as a 'Trauma part' that holds the experience of trauma

Secondary dissociation - C-PTSD / complex trauma: Where a person has more than one 'Going on with normal life' part as well as multiple trauma parts that often are caught in defensive actions and patterns of trauma

Dissociative disorders - OSDD / UDD: Other specified and unspecified dissociative disorders are diagnoses given when a person does not meet the full criteria for a specific dissociative disorder

Tertiary dissociation - DID / polyfragmented DID: Characterised by two or more distinct personality states, and in the case of polyfragmented DID, a person has a large number of 'alters' or identities, each with their own sense of self

Outside of the parts model, but still within dissociation, are:

Dissociative amnesia: Where a person cannot remember important information about their life (more than ordinary forgetfulness)

Depersonalisation & derealisation: Where a person experiences feelings of detachment from their body or cognitions, including a disconnect from their self or environment

End image description]

[Image description:

An infographic describing primary structural dissociation.

In primary structural dissociation, there is a 'Going on with normal life part', which avoids traumatic reminders to function in normal life goals. Daily life functions include rest, play, socialising, relationships, and intimacy.

There is also a trauma part, which is engaged in survival / animal defences and is often in hyper- or hypoarousal. Trauma responses (defences) are: fight, flight, freeze, submit, and attach.

End image description]

[Image description:

An infographic describing secondary structural dissociation.

In secondary structural dissociation, there is a 'Going on with normal life part', which avoids traumatic reminders to function in normal life goals.

There are also multiple trauma parts, which are engaged in survival / animal defences and is often in hyper- or hypoarousal. Trauma responses (defences) are: fight, flight, freeze, submit, and attach.

End image description]

[Image description:

An infographic describing tertiary structural dissociation. It gives an example of a system, the collection of all alters (parts) within a person.

In tertiary structural dissociation, there are multiple 'Going on with normal life parts', one or more of which may be called the 'host(s)', who are engaged in daily life. Examples of going on with normal life parts are a worker alter, a caregiver alter, and a partner alter.

There are also multiple trauma parts, which are alters engaged in survival defences. Examples of trauma parts are a gatekeeper alter (who decides who fronts), fight alters (e.g. Ann, a 24 year old primar protector part, and Don, a 30 year old persecutor part), flight alters (e.g. Sally, an 8 year old trauma holder), freeze alters (e.g. Marcus, a 10 year old trauma holder), submit alters (e.g. Pia, an 18 year old trauma holder), and attach alters (may be called 'littles', e.g. Lily, a 4 year old and Jack, a 6 year old, both trauma holders).

End image description]

- Natasja Wagner

#actually now that i read the 1st its kinda shitty. starts off good but when it gets to OSDD & DID it loses it - where are the DLP & TPs?#wheres the text explaining that DPDR and DA arent part of the ToSD but still dissociative disorders (which i added in the description)?#maybe i'll make a better one.#actually all of these are shit. lol #described #described in post #structural dissociation #dissociative identity disorder #primary dissociation #secondary dissociation #tertiary dissociation #altered states of consciousness #dissociation #theory of structural dissociation #dogpost

90 notes · View notes

kipandkandicore · 11 months

Text

“but the theory of structural dissociation is just a theory!”

you know what else is a theory?

the theory of relativity

the theory of evolution

germ theory of disease

the theory of plate tectonics

the modern atomic theory

cell theory

just because something is a scientific theory does not mean it can be or has been easily disproven. in fact, in order for a concept to become a theory there must be ample evidence to back and support the claim!

so let’s please stop discrediting the tosd because it’s “only a theory.” theories help us explain and understand the world around us. and theories require tons of scientific evidence before they can even call themselves that.

there’s a reason why it’s not called “the concept of structural dissociation” or “the hypothesis of structural dissociation.” there is ample research to prove that structural dissociation can and does happen in those with complex dissociative disorders who experienced chronic traumatization.

if you don’t understand the tosd, that’s okay! it’s a complex and difficult topic that may take some research in order to learn more about. thankfully, we’ve done some research, and we’re more than happy to link some of the resources we’ve found in our studies.

ctad clinic’s video on structural dissociation

trauma-related structural dissociation of the personality

phase-oriented treatment of structural dissociation in complex traumatization

the haunted self: structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization

the treatment of structural dissociation in chronically traumatized patients

understanding treatments for structural dissociation

trauma informed stabilisation treatment for structural dissociation

(note about these sources: some of them may not be accessible if you’re not a part of an institution! we were able to access some using 12ft.io and others using our friend’s university login credentials… research should be open-access to the public and for-profit journals are a scourge upon the earth!)

“but the tosd is ableist!”

we personally, as a disabled system with dissociative identity disorder, don’t find the theory ableist, and in fact, find that it has immensely benefitted us in our healing path. we can’t find any evidence of the tosd being ableist, besides a single opinion-piece by the stronghold system, with claims which have since been debunked by multiple people, including system speak.

“but onno van der hart (a researcher who worked on the tosd) is an abuser who lost his license!”

this is true, and it is deplorable! however, van der hart is just one of many who have studied and written on structural dissociation, and the book the haunted self was written by him and two other authors! just because one researcher made bad choices, committed malpractice, or abused their patients does not mean that the theory as a whole should be discredited. another author of the book, kathy steele, has been a powerhouse in dissociation and trauma research for nearly 4 decades and is still going strong!

unfortunately, those with dissociative disorders are often vulnerable, traumatized, abuse survivors, and may seem like easy prey for abusers. this can lead bad actors to be drawn towards fields of trauma and dissociation. it’s important for those who harm patients and commit malpractice to be uprooted from the medical field and banned from treating or interacting with vulnerable patients in the future! but that doesn’t mean all research they were involved in should be cast aside and ignored. peer reviewed thoroughly and critically? yes. cross-examined and compared to case studies? absolutely. tossed out because the author was a bad person? definitely not!

“but dissociative disorders are still under researched!”

yes, this is true! but that’s no excuse to get rid of or dismiss the current research and widely accepted frameworks that do exist. it’s important to ask questions and be critical of widely accepted theories, instead of accepting them at face value. at the same time, it is counterproductive and and downright harmful to tear down research that has tangible benefits and has worked in the past to help traumatized systems recover!

it is normal to be afraid of things we don’t understand. but it is necessary to push past that fear, work through those knee-jerk reactions, and do our own research to come to a better understanding of the things that may confuse us!

if y’all have any questions or would like to further discuss the theory of structural dissociation, by all means feel welcome to! but please understand we are not a mental health professional or academic researcher - we’re just a system trying to learn more about our disorder and share the knowledge we’ve picked up along the way.

#syscourse #long post #theory of structural dissociation #tosd #structural dissociation #trauma mention #abuse mention #this had been sitting in our drafts for a while but we finally decided to finish and post it

89 notes · View notes

traumaanddissociation · 11 months

Text

Actors role playing DID can be identified from differences in brain activation patterns, compared to people with DID - and brain activation patterns depend on whether an trauma holder alter / EP is in charge or a Apparently Normal Part / host - supporting the Theory of Structural Dissociation of the Personality (TSDP).

Multiple brain scan studies support structural dissociation, brain activation differences between alters, brain activation differences between people with DID and healthy controls or trained actors pretending to have DID.

Regions of the brain activated are those known to be associated with self-referencing and sensorimotor actions, but not the regions linked to imagination

Schlumpf YR, Reinders AATS, Nijenhuis ERS, Luechinger R, van Osch MJP, Jäncke L (2014) Dissociative Part-Dependent Resting-State Activity in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Controlled fMRI Perfusion Study. PLoS ONE 9(6): e98795.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791283/

#neuroscience #medical research #dissociative Identity Disorder #actually dissociative #dissociativeidentitydisorder #did research #A lot is known about DID #structural dissociation #theory of structural dissociation #theory of structural dissociation of the personality #DID evidence #Schlumpf2014 #TSDP #actually traumagenic

58 notes · View notes

the-malpractice · 1 year

Text

Okay TOSD(theory of structural dissociation) fandom, I have a question:

So according to the TOSD before the age of what, 8-9 or something you're made up of these ego states that then integrate if you're a singlet and if you experience extreme trauma don't.

What are the ego states? How many are they? What happens to them? Can you tell me who in your system developed from what ego state? Is the hungry ego state just always hungry? Do they become the sin of gluttony or something? I genuinely want to know because not only can I find nothing about these ego states other than specific references to the TOSD, I have never heard anyone mention how many ego states you have and what they are. The most popularized version of ego states I could find applied to everyone, and was about adult/child and I think a third, as well as Freud's ego states.

As much as this does genuinely baffle me I know it'll be more useful to have a respectful conversation about it so I will try not to be too sarcastic. This isn't the right place for sysmed shit or talking about why Onno van der Hart lost his license, trust me we are aware of all that but that isn't the purpose of this post so please save it for another place and another time.

-Rev

Edit: I apologize for coming across as rude/hostile, the TOSD comes with a lot of negative association for us since it often correlates with other.. unpleasant traits and conversations, which isn't exactly fair to project onto everyone involved. I kind of tacked onto the end of the post that I want a respectful/amicable discussion but never went back to remove any of the snark at the beginning. I'm leaving it as is just for transparency's sake so nobody is wondering what the hell the reblogs are talking about.

#did #dissociative identity disorder #osdd #osdd 1b #osdd 1a #traumagenic #traumagenic did #pluralgang #plurality #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #syscourse #sysmed mention #tw sysmed #putting those because from my experience mostly sysmeds care about/reference the tosd

66 notes · View notes

multiplicity-positivity · 11 months

Note

I'm ill informed about DID and the systems, and I had this question in my mind a long time.

Not everyone that goes through trauma end up having a system. How does trauma play a role in whether or not the person becomes plural?

Apologies if my question sounded off putting. I want to learn about DID the best I can!

hey, no worries, we definitely don’t mind answering questions like this.

we’ll try to talk about what we understand wrt the theory of structural dissociation, trauma, and the brain.

those who are plural or a system as a result of a complex dissociative disorder (so did or osdd-1) have systems that formed in similar ways.

as children, we need lots of support and care in order to develop into healthy people. our caregivers need to not only treat us kindly and take care of us, but also teach us crucial skills about the world, like processing negative events and emotional regulation. for many kids, their guardians were able to effectively teach them how to self-regulate and cope with stressful situations, on top of raising them with compassion. so when these kids faced a stressful or difficult event, they were able to process it, seek help from their support network of caregivers and loved ones, and successfully move on from the event. in this way, some kids are traumatized but never develop trauma disorders (like ptsd or did).

unfortunately, not all children are raised with an excellent support system. if a child is never taught how to deal with stressful events, and is repeatedly neglected or exposed to stressful events before their brain has a chance to grow and develop, it can have severe consequences. a consequence that may manifest is structural dissociation.

one way a young child may cope with an overwhelming situation is to disconnect from it entirely. if they are, for example, being abused by someone who they rely on for support, it may be too scary, shocking, or upsetting for them to understand or deal with at all. so they disconnect from the event. rather than effectively processing trauma, they separate themselves from it through dissociation. the trauma becomes someone else’s, and the more the child had to disconnect from their memories, the more likely those experiences are to developing into an alter.

not all children dissociate, and not all traumatized children are prone to dissociation. but if a child does dissociate to cope, and if they’re forced to dissociate regularly, the parts of themselves that hold particular memories, feelings, or knowledge… lose touch with each other. and they continue to develop separately, without ever interacting with the other parts.

in this way, alters form. as you can see, these parts separating like this are a direct result of trauma in childhood. however, if children are not prone to dissociation, if they are able to process negative events (either alone or with help), and if stressful events are not a regular, repeated occurrence, they may end up with trauma, but without a system or dissociative disorder.

does this make sense?

we’re happy to explain in more detail if need be. our apologies if this response seems muddled or doesn’t make much sense.

one last thing we’d like to note: not everyone with did/osdd/a dissociative disorder considers themselves plural or even a system (just like how not ever plural person has a dissociative disorder). some people with complex dissociative disorders view themselves as a single person with distinct parts, a system without experiencing multiplicity, or even just a person grappling with dissociation and complex trauma. so it’s best to ask each individual what terminology works best for them.

you can learn more about dissociation through the cdd-specific links in our resource master post. i’ll link it below:

don’t hesitate to reach out if you need any more help understanding this - it’s a difficult topic and one we’re still learning about ourselves! also, anyone with a cdd is welcome to come forward to share their thoughts on trauma, plurality, and how they are and aren’t connected. thank you!

🐢 kip

#did osdd #dissociative identity disorder #theory of structural dissociation #tosd #trauma tw #abuse tw #long post

32 notes · View notes

unwelcome-ozian · 1 year

Text

You should not assume that the adult who function in the world, or who presents to you, week after week, is the "real" person, and the other personalities are less real. The client who comes to therapy is not "the" person; there are other personalities to meet and work with. When DID was still officially called MPD, the "person" who lived life on the outside was known as the "host" personality, and the other parts were known as alters. These terms, unfortunately, implied that all the parts other than the host were guests, and therefore of less importance than the host. They were somehow secondary. The currently favored theory of structural dissociation (Nijenhuis & Den Boer, 2009; van der Hart, Nijenhuis, & Steele, 2006), which more accurately describes the way personality systems operate, instead distinguishes between two kinds of states: the apparently normal personality, or ANP, and the emotional personality, or EP, both of which could include a number of parts. p21” ― Alison Miller, Healing the Unimaginable: Treating Ritual Abuse and Mind Control

#DID #ANP #EP #theory of structural dissociation #personality systems #how personality systems operate

61 notes · View notes

fqirycollective · 2 years

Text

Dissociation Help From Professionals: Part Two

Hey! We recently received a list of dissociation coping tools from the person we work with and we thought we'd share as a part two to the original post that had been made. We haven't been able to try all of these out yet and some of them take time to practice, but here we go! Note: Part one has more sensory techniques. This part includes cognitive techniques.

Reminding Yourself

This means reminding yourself where you are, the date, and the time. This helps ground you and brings you back into the moment due to reminding your brain "Hey, I'm here. Not in the traumatic moment." This also goes for those of you who are no longer in traumatic situations. You can remind yourself that the trauma is over and you're safe in the current location at the current time. This has about a 40% success rate for us, as we're constantly in the dissociative states to varying degrees, but it may help others.

Coping Statements

There are all kinds of coping statements online for all kinds of mental issues. You can simply just google ones for trauma, PTSD, anxiety, stress, etc. A few we have are "I am safe now." and "I can feel anxious and still deal with this situation." These are kind of like affirmations. They help remind yourself that you can handle what's going on and it tells your brain "Maybe I don't need to dissociate away from this."

Talking to Yourself with Compassion

This one isn't necessarily for dissociation. But changing the way you talk to yourself and your parts can help you calm down, see things in a different way, make parts feel safer, etc. It helps your brain feel like it's okay to react the way you're reacting, and so you don't need to dissociate away from your reactions. I hope that made sense, I didn't really understand it at first when it was explained but I think I understand it better now.

Doing Mental Exercises

These help prevent you from focusing on the bad, any worrying thoughts, etc. and instead redirects your focus onto certain activities that helps you stay in the moment and not drift off. Some examples would be: counting back in threes, crossword puzzles, Sudoku games, and other logical games/activities that keep your brain focused on certain things. These things came from google except the counting back by threes, so you can just google some ones to try! However the ones more focused on dissociation and mental health are ones that usually need to be practiced a bit.

Reminding Yourself About You

This helps with the identity confusion and disconnect from identity experienced in dissociation. Examples of this would be: name, age, pronouns, gender, sexuality, friends + family names, etc. It reminds your brain and yourself about the basic basis of your identity and so helps with the identity aspect of dissociation.

#did system #osdd system #osdd #did alter #did osdd #dissociative system #osdd support #osdd community #osdd things #trauma #theory of structural dissociation #otherwise specified dissociative disorder #dissociation

107 notes · View notes

succulentcatsneeze · 9 months

Text

Currently working on putting together a whole bunch of info regarding dissociation theory and phenomenology into a powerpoint because my family wants to learn about it, but I'm definitely gonna share it here once I've finished it!

13 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 11 months

Text

I went on a rant to friends and now I'm posting it here

The ToSD as a "theory"

Instead of arguing about what a theory IS, let's talk about the actual phenomenon itself

Talking about what makes a theory a theory is pointless and only clouds the actual conversation that's trying to happen. It's misleading and dismissive. It's meant to silence people that support the trauma theory and to derail useful conversations

There's physical evidence supporting the ToSD

It's the most widely accepted trauma theory

Why are we arguing about it though-- Can you describe what the theory actually is? Does anyone even know what their issue with ToSD is? Can you actually explain your problem with it? Or are you just arguing because you know other people are arguing over it?

"It's ableist"

How?

"It doesn't account for endogenics"

It's not about endogenics, why would it do that

"It doesn't explain daydreaming--"

What is the author's definition of dissociation?

"It doesn't account for DA or DPDR-"

Yes, it does

In the field of psychology, the only things standing in its way are iatrogenesis/fantasy and the definition of dissociation, and the authors have clarified their definition, and iatrogenesis is... Disproven. Thoroughly.

There are actual brain scans that support the theory.

How much more evidence does it need before we can stop just dismissing it outright and derailing conversations into arguments about semantics?

Disproving the ToSD is about proving the fantasy theory-- ToSD is the prevailing theory for the trauma model vs the sociocognitive model

It's a talking point from early syscourse, back in the natural multiple period meant to support that DID/multiplicity was possible outside of trauma (at the time, the theory was known as the continuum of dissociation, and was mostly worked on by Braun), that's why there's no actual argument against it except, "it's just a theory"

The point is to just shut down the conversation

#syscourse #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #this isn't at anyone in particular #I'm just mad about the dismissive “it's just a theory” argument and thought my rant was okay

41 notes · View notes

hauntedselves · 10 months

Link

“People with OSDD need to understand that their experiences are valid and real and not inferior in any way to people with dissociative identity disorder. And whilst recognising the differences, we can also recognise the underlying similarities. [...] It may be important for some people with OSDD to distinguish their experience from that of people with dissociative identity disorder and it would be good for people in this category to come forwards and write about their experience to help people, clinicians in particular, understand the unique characteristics of life with OSDD. For others, it may be validating to recognise that the distinguishing line between OSDD and DID is largely arbitrary, and to subsume the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder into their own self-definition of being a dissociative survivor.”

#carolyn spring #dissociative identity disorder #other specified dissociative disorder #did #osdd #osdd 1 #ptsd ± cptsd ± bpd ± osdd ± did #theory of structural dissociation #dogpost

10 notes · View notes

feralsyscourse · 2 years

Text

Does anyone have any links to studies regarding the theory of structural dissociation, we would like to read those.

We know the basics of the theory but have yet to see any studies, and don’t know where to look for them.

#theory of structural dissociation #DID #dissociative identity disorder #DID system #DID community #OSDD #OSDD system #OSDD-1 #OSDD-1a #OSDD-1b #OSDD-1a system #OSDD-b system #plural #pluralgang #plural gang #endo safe #TOSD

33 notes · View notes

system-of-a-feather · 11 months

Note

Hello, I’m curious about what this post means?

https://www.tumblr.com/system-of-a-feather/718445430628859904/ok-people-equating-the-theory-of-structural

If you don’t mind explaining, that is! Aren’t they both scientific theories? /gen

(I got to sleep in today weekends are great ;w; *is in a better mood and has energy to explain some to someone genuinely asking since this is a thing that hurts me about the internet and how they talk about science*)

"Aren’t they both scientific theories?"

Yes, but only in the way that you can say that apples and tomatos are both fruit (true) and should be put in a fruit salad (debatable by which study you go to and the context in which you discuss it) - or that fish and Chordata are both existing things (for those that don't know either through school or memes, "fish" don't exist claudistically / in taxonomy, they are a polyphylic group)

.... while I'm doing comparisons, I think its actually fair to say that its more inaccurate than comparing apples to oranges - its comparing apples and tomatos - but I digress that's just a distracting "heh" I thought of XD

Putting the analogies aside and explaining it properly - they are both "scientific" in the sense that they are both following and part of the very very very very broad term of "science". With that being said, science in practice and when understanding research - when talked about in such a general way - is much more an ideal and a concept like Bushido Code than it is an actual like.... Facts TM and Truths TM about the world.

When we talk about stuff like the theory of evolution, gravity, the scientific theories we easily and frequently label as "basically as close as you can get to fact" we are almost always talking about hard sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics - sciences that have a relatively simple / easy time (relatively) in terms of research design, validity, and verifying data. Hard sciences (again, relatively speaking) tend to collect and base their theories on unchangable, (relatively) simple functions of systems that they are investigating, and their data (relatively) are hard and firm as they are directly measuring an aspect of the system they are investigating and (comparatively) the concern on concept, criterion, face, predictive, external, internal, (etc) validity is not really as significant. The things that hard sciences are investigating are far more "unchanging rules of the world base in hard to accidentally or intentionally spoof measurements" than soft sciences.

Psychology - a soft science - doesn't (often) work on measuring hard and (relatively) unchangeable measures and is often measuring really large scale topics that aren't even really properly sure even 1) exists 2) if it is genuinely even a single thing or an emergent property (as in it comes out through the means of many other things interacting but on its own is not really a 'thing').

Because the measures are not (often) hard measures, they are often subject to ambiguity, bias, interpretation, and questions of how valid of a measure it even is (which isn't a "yes or no" thing, because you very very rarely have a perfectly valid measure in psychology - it is a lot more of how much you are willing to accept it as a decent enough of a measure).

Because measures are measuring things we don't even have a firm concept of ("things falling" for gravity VS consciousness??? what??? is??? it???), the very relation of the measure to whatever the researcher is trying to study and how they understand it has to be taken into account as well. (In the research community of DEDICATED researchers on memory (also often considered one of the more harder sciences in the soft science psychology) while starting to get to an agreement on it - can't even agree on what "memory" and "forgetting" is despite it being the heart of their main dedicated study. Read the discussion on decay vs retrieval)

Because of BOTH of those, psychology is almost ALWAYS up for debate within research, professional, and academic environments. There is always something wrong with someone's research design, variable measurement, analysis method, concept validity, or what the hell they are approaching shit with. (for example, some people in the field of memory don't believe you can retrieve repressed memories because there have been numerous studies that shows that in a research lab they could not get any adult and-not-stressed individuals to intentionally forget an elephant and show evidence of recalling it later within implicit, explicit, long term, or short term memory; I'm sure I don't need to explain why while this is "good evidence" and "science", that its fucking STUPID.) Even the best and most backed ideas in psychology - even in the ones that border closer to neuropsychology - are always genuinely up to debate within the research community.

Additionally, when we talk about biology, chemistry, physics, etc we are talking about fields of science that have existed for millennia (arguably biology has been around since humans have had society with people trying to understand the human body and animals around through what can be considered early scientific means) and at worst centuries (modern chemistry which is around the 1700s or 1800s). Psychology (which is also a large group and not a monolith) has only really been making significant scientific advancements in the tail end of the 1800s and mainly in the early 1900s which, when combined with the issue above makes for an entirely different way you have to approach how you talk about "theories". This is just a sheer numbers game in terms of how long some of these theories have been genuinely considered and challenged by more individuals and also by letting the research fields grow properly.

That is all generally speaking in regards to PSYCHOLOGY. If we are talking about developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology (which would probably be the best specific fields to label the claims the ToSD makes) we have to keep in mind that we are operating in a field that has soft measurements, complex and possibly non-existent concepts they are measuring, and - if we are being real - people who actually are interested in helping and caring for mentally ill people rather than putting them in a hell asylum for debatably give or take a century. A good number of the people who started genuinely giving an interest in actually treating and understanding (with good intent) the mind of mentally ill people could still be alive today. Additionally, its a field that compared to other fields is relatively small in the workforce of people interested in exploring it. Then you have to pull it down to the specifications of dissociation and trauma disorders in those areas and you have that even more so + that the concept of "what is DID" is a WHOLE other thing and that one I won't explain on cause I am in the dunning kruger pit of despair of how that works and I refuse to act like I know what the fuck is going on there and am ok staying in my lane until I resume my education and talk to more experienced people in the field with my 5000 questions.

I had something more to say on this but I lost my train of thought and flow of this specific one cause my bird distracted me and I've been sitting here for 5 minutes trying to remember it and I'm just gonna give up on picking up that train of thought because even if I do I think itll be incoherent with what I wrote above - but they are really non-comparable.

They both use the word "theory" in a similar manner, but it's like grabbing an American and a British person and saying "chips" or "football". You will get a "snack probably made potatoes" but you will very likely not get the same thing because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips". You will get a game where multiple people play against eachother using a ball to get points on a board - but you will absolutely not be able to get an American team of football players and British football players on a field to play a cohesive game against each other because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips".

You can talk about apples and tomatos like they are fruits, but when you breakdown what a "fruit" is for each of those. Apples are fruits in almost every field afaik. Tomatos - while fruits - are not fruits in more softer / artistic fields like culinary, and that is where you have to understand the context of the field you are specifically talking about to understand that on a professional level you REALLY should not put a tomato into a fruit salad.

You can talk about fish as a concept as something that obviously exists and that there is research obviously there proving that fish are physically there and an existing phenomenon - but you would be laughed at to state that there is hard scientific proof that fish exist JUST as much as there is hard scientific proof that the Class Chordata exists because 1) what the fuck is a "fish" defined as is up to debate 2) there is a lot of evidence that would suggest that trying to group something as a "fish" is hard to do and absurd.

It's an issue of understanding the context of the term "theory" in respect to the field it is in. It's about understanding that while "theories" are both the "same" thing, the practical application and specific interpretations of the term in their respective fields are drastically different even by the people who are studying it for a living. It's an issue of understanding that even within the same field, the subfields have different context and approaches and guidelines for research that has them coming to different conclusion. It's an issue of understanding that one field is trying to understand often intangible and blurry concepts BY DESIGN (as it is impractical to try to understand shit like DID to the atomic level) and another is operating in investigating a harder and more concrete concept.

You can go into physics, chemistry, and biology and there are concepts you will find that no researcher would really question (unless they are in the really innovative end where they go so deep that the specifics of those are questioned). You can't do that for psychology - and for a lot of the things you think you can for psychology - I would probably be willing to bet you that there is a valid research opposition. You can do that even less for developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology, and even less for dissociation and trauma and that is solely because dissociation and trauma research is dependent on other sub fields like memory, consciousness, identity, etc that are SUPER not established. If researchers can't agree what MEMORY and FORGETTING is; if researchers can't agree if CONSCIOUSNESS even EXISTS; if researchers are clueless as to what the fuck identity is and how the brain generates it - then who the fuck are we to say we know fuck all about DID (which requires all three for those combined) to the same level we understand gravity or evolution.

The theory of structural dissociation is far more a practice-orientated theory to help in the practical immediate because currently the field is too young and confused to have a genuine "this is KNOWN scientifically" consensus - and the ToSD works pretty well for practical uses but you have to acknowledge that it only does so by ignoring five bajillion holes and assumptions it has to make to work. It's laughable to compare something that is a practice-focused theory to something that is a hard dedicated 'universal truth' seeking theory like gravity.

(Which is not to say it is invalid or wrong or anything, see the above conversation on validity in psychology, but that you have to take it with a grain of salt understanding that it is assuming things about memory, consciousness, identity, etc that we REALLY don't even know exists; and this is a GOOD and FAIR trade off because the intent is for practicality and treatment for people that are clearly dealing with SOMETHING rather than a genuine question of what does and does not exist because in clinical psychology there is very very little point in trying to prove something exists because the goal is to TREAT and find ways to help people with whatever it is they are dealing with. You are expected to do some handwaves and generalize concepts for the sake of practicality and application, its just that you have to understand that you are choosing to lower its reliability and validity in name of practicality and application)

-Riku

-----

Post cut comments and thoughts / points that came into my head that I wanted to put in but never got the opportunity.

Another thing worth considering, if I told you that for five billion dollars, I needed you to get me a list of every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting gravity OR every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting ToSD - which would you do? It'd be a fucking pain in the ass because ToSD is decently supported by a number of individuals, but god hell no would I waste my time even trying with gravity. The list would be larger by an order of multitudes.

I always tell my friends that the field of psychological research is literally just professional discourse / syscourse. Everyone is chronically bitching at each other under their breaths and calling each other stupid and nitpicking the other people's small words and arguments in favor of their theory - and the thing is? They ALL are scientifically valid arguments because in psychology we don't know SHIT. In actual psychological research discourse it's a whole bunch of people slamming papers on the table and going "SEE. I'm right" and then someone picking up their paper and going "Actually your [insert type of validity and research design and concept] is stupid lol" and then slamming another study that accounts for it and supports their argument and then the first guy doing it BACK at him. Thats how the field of psychology works and its so fucking funny and amazing and thats what I LOVE about it. Its PROFESSIONAL discourse and some of the people in the field are the most fucking SNARKY and STUBBORN bitches in how they talk about other researcher's opinions in private but do their best to respect them in public and professionally because they DO respect their role and that their approach is still not only scientifically sound, but also invaluable to the accurate development and understanding of the concept at hand. They WANT to be right and to hold onto their opinion because they feel they are right so there is always this stubborn snark - but there is an agreed and shared mutual understanding that we all are just trying to get to the truth of an absurdly complex and possibly not even real topic and that back and forth is VITAL lifeblood to it.

In regards to #2, its one of the reasons I try to avoid any serious syscourse cause every time I see people saying things are "science" they are usually jsut throwing one psychological research paper or literature review down (maybe 5 if they are actually better at discussing it) and saying "these are FACTS" when - in the field of psychology and research - that is honestly only slightly better than just linking someone else's blog post as evidence. Yeah its more professional and actually based on data and research so its better than someone just saying "its real" but its hardly "facts" like people like to act like they are

This isn't a black and white issue where it either "is facts" or it is "invalid and non scientific" which is the main thing I really want to make sure is clear. We are NOT anti-ToSD but we are anti-"calling things facts when they arent". ToSD is the best that we know currently and it is incredibly helpful in reflecting generalized understandings of a vague concept and we can talk about things in "mosts" and "currently" but we absolutely can't be sitting here stating anything in absolutes because when people say "it just a theory" in THIS case, they are honestly probably more right than wrong because unlike gravity and evolution, ToSD does not have nearly enough support to live up to the standards and comparison of Gravity and Evolution - which is not bad or wrong - it's by design and serves its purpose, it just isn't made to be used Like That.

#alter: riku #research posting #nerd posting #scientific literacy #ask #asks #syscourse #discourse #syscourse tw #discourse tw #riku rambles #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #long post #research

2 notes · View notes