I am not saying this is the case here, but I have often heard this argument used to dismiss both otherkin and multiples as merely being disaffectected head-jobs who either associate themselves too much with something or dissociate themselves to much from everything.
I think that's not what he was saying here; it read more like that trauma-based multiples would have more material to draw on in creating other selves because they would be aware that things like therians, furries, etc. existed. Previous generations had to learn about such things by reading books of mythology and folklore. Now it's all over the tube.
This was, certainly, the argument used by psychiatrist George Ganaway to explain away multiplicity as simply a series of exciting stories told by the client to entertain the therapist for approval and recognition as a Special Person, viz. this set of rants from some months ago:
no subject
I think that's not what he was saying here; it read more like that trauma-based multiples would have more material to draw on in creating other selves because they would be aware that things like therians, furries, etc. existed. Previous generations had to learn about such things by reading books of mythology and folklore. Now it's all over the tube.
This was, certainly, the argument used by psychiatrist George Ganaway to explain away multiplicity as simply a series of exciting stories told by the client to entertain the therapist for approval and recognition as a Special Person, viz. this set of rants from some months ago:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sethrenn/56091.html
Golly, Captain Zen. For a singlet, he sure knows a lot about plurality!