Multiplicity

Exactly what I was going to say. The assumption that all multiplicity is DID is erroneous at best, and insulting if one persists in it after being informed otherwise.

"people who claim they have DID and really don't show any symptoms at all"

Y'know, dear, I was married for almost 20 years and had a daughter (now going-on-16) with a man who never knew that three of us share this body. This was because my first husband had known, and used the information in such an abusive, manipulative way that finally I "confessed" that I'd made it all up just to get him to stop. My best friend for the past 32 years doesn't know, because when I tried to tell her back in High School she didn't believe me, and I've never brought the subject up again - sometimes I think I really should, but I can't figure out how to go about it without looking like an idiot, and it would hurt my feelings too much if I told her and she still didn't believe me.

Not all multiples (whether with DID or not) "show symptoms", and quite a few of us would categorically deny being multiple if asked in realtime, because the 'attention' one is likely to receive is not the kind anybody with a lick of sense would want. You may wish to check out this post (http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/295941.html), because we were just discussing this very topic there.

Granted, there are fakers out there, and they're incredibly annoying to real multiples, especially since they invariably base their little cardboard 'alters' on all the phoniest pop-psychology stereotypes. It's probably even fair to say that most of the chickies running around telling everyone at school that they 'have DID' are faking, because if they were genuinely multiple they'd be doing their best to keep it a secret for fear of the dire consequences (especially to a minor) that could follow.

That doesn't mean that a person who's got good reason to trust you is necessarily lying when they tell you they're multiple. As for "symptoms", don't assume that the pop-psychology books by singlet shrinks are 'how it really is', because most of those books are an utter load of fertilizer.

Anyway, welcome to the community, and I hope you find it both interesting and educational! :)

From:

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. The "phony stereotype personalities" were exactly the words I was looking for. I apologize for the generalization of DID, the professors I work with generally tend to clump things together - thank you for pointing that out. And especially thanks for stamping the defination of my term fakers. :D

From:

*smiles* You're welcome! I have encountered a couple of those fakers in realtime myself, and I just wanted to slap them silly.

From:

chorus-of-chaos.livejournal.com

hollywood perpetuates that myth about criminal level of illness with movies like Secret Window, Perfect Blue, etc...It really ticks me off. I wonder if anyone knows how many actual cases of murder have truely involved someone who was multiple, and out of those, how many of the murdered people were abusers??

From:

terp-lj.livejournal.com

Multiplicity is not necessarily a 'disorder' at all - DID, MPD, or otherwise. As such, it's not a mental illness - criminal or otherwise.

Most of the disorders that we end up suffering from are secondary to a few things: the way society marginalizes us, and psychologists/psychiatrists who insist that more than one person living in a single body are inherently unhealthy and in need of treatment.

From:

From a medical standpoint DID is classfied as a mental illness. I'm not blaming people for having it. You may deal with it and have it and maybe even enjoy it, but there are countless others that do not enjoy it or cohabitat with it. I agree though, for some it's not an illness, but for others it is.

From:

Homosexuality was a mental illness until 1972.

From:

From a "medical standpoint", homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973. Do you believe that it is one?

One thing you're probably going to learn real fast here is that there are quite a few people on this community who have researched the subject of multiplicity to an extent you can't imagine, in an effort to make sense of their own lives. Such people are really unlikely to take kindly to a 20-year-old singlet with "an interest" coming in and trying to tell them How It Really Is. If you didn't bother to read the links on the Info Page, I suggest you do so.

I'd also like to mention the fact that there are a number of psychiatric survivors (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22psychiatric+survivors%22&btnG=Google+Search) here, who have experienced at first-hand the abuses inflicted by the "mental-health professionals" you apparently regard as authorities. Of course, I wouldn't dream of asking you to take the word of a bunch of crazy people - certainly not; that would be, well, crazy.

Therefore I refer you, instead, to the works of Dr. Thomas Szasz (http://www.bigeye.com/szasz.htm), Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at the State University of New York Health Science Center. Though I have to warn you that quoting him is not likely to win you any popularity with your Intro To Psychology 101 instructors.

From:

I heart you!!

From:

*grins, hearts ya back*

Okay, but keep in mind, the poor girl's only just arrived here, hasn't had any information besides the psychiatric establishment's garbage, and is trying her best to smooth over the feathers she's inadvertently ruffled. She isn't responsible for what we've put up with from the Thought Police and people like

myeloma; she just doesn't know yet.

And hey, if you'd ever met any of the kind of fakers she's talking about, believe me, you'd want to slap them too, because they are tedious beyond belief. If her whole high school got swept by a "DID Craze", I'm not at all surprised that she's fed up with it. So... a little slack to be cut here, 'kay?

From:

eh eh eh yeah to late......oops.

From:

Yes, fakers are quite obnoxious. Especially when they just wont give it up >_< (I'm thinking of

dissonance in particular here - he has a new lj now but I forget what it is)

From: (Anonymous)

If they don't tire of it and continue being themselves isn't that a good sign they could really be a they?

From:

It could, or it could just mean they're pathetic.

From:

terp-lj.livejournal.com

While DID may be classified as a mental illness, as others have pointed out: (1) Multiplicity does not always indicate DID, and (2) mental illnesses are defined and designated quite arbitrarily - homosexuality and transsexuality being frequently cited examples of conditions that have been designated as mental illness because of a belief system without scientific basis that has been held by the MH community.

Furthermore, we are all distinct individuals and real people. Even for those who do have a problem with it and would prefer to be singular, the suggestion that the others should be eliminated sounds to me a lot like advocacy for murder - with the 'justification' that the victim(s) have no physical body of their own, and therefore never really existed in the first place.

If you recognize that we're all people with an equal right to live and exist, there's no reason why an external person should be thought of or treated differently than another within our own system. This creates a dangerous set of ideals: if someone else is in your space and it bothers you, just eliminate them and reclaim the space for yourself. If it applies inside of a multiple system, it should logically extend out to co-workers, housemates, family members, or people who crowd you in a subway train; however, it does NOT apply - we should NOT be eliminating other people who inconvenience us by getting into our space, whether those people be external or internal. On the other hand, if you don't accept the premise that we all have the right to live and exist, then i classify you amongst the myriad others in history who have decided that genocide against an "undesirable" population is acceptable, and i have no time for you.

From:

Exactly! Someone suggested that I "get rid of" Shi since she occasionally causes problems - but to me that isn't any different from killing a 3D sister just because we don't get along.

From:

Like cases of abuse and rape, the cases of "fake" dissociatives and multiples aare statistically rare. To make the judgement that folks "fake it in high school or to get out of a criminal case" makes the judgement that one can prove the Others do not exist, something that multiples and dissociatives across the board deal with on a daily basis.

As a non-multiple it might be a good idea to instead work on the validation and positive development of self-efficacy and autonomy in those who identify as dissociative or multiple so that they can either a) heal from whatever they need to heal from or b) finally become empowered as multiple/dissociated.

From personal experience being told constantly that one is "faking it" because those around one don't believe or cannot believe in multiplicity or dissociation can definitely cause a "complex" and a regression into thinking one "isn't multiple" because everyone says so. Doesn't change anything, just causes the Others to bury deeper.

From:

People with DID show signs that they have multiple personalities. There are symptoms, people that i know that declare they have it are (and at the private admission of some to me) faking it to get attention. They did not show symptoms.

Many criminals, including some people included in a study I was involved it, have tried to claim DID as a defense. Sure - there is no way we can know for sure, however from a clinical standpoint they did not exhibit TRUE symptoms and since being found guilty they have either admitted to or completely dropped the symptoms they were trying to exhibit at the time. But I agree, there is no way to know for sure.

From:

unknown-tales.livejournal.com

However, there are people who are multiple that have gotten so used to presenting one face to the outside world that there would be no symptoms. The fact that someone does not have symptoms does not necessarily mean they are not multiple.

From:

Please refer to my reply to elenbarathi, she absolutely completely described what I was trying to get at with the word "fakers".

From:

unknown-tales.livejournal.com

Thanks. :)

From:

What are these symptoms you keep talking about? I think it's safe to say that the majority of multiples do not have DID, and therefore wouldn't be expected to show the same "symptoms" as someone who does. So while yes there are certain criteria to be labeled as DID, not fulfilling said criteria doesn't mean they aren't a multiple.

From:

idianshire.livejournal.com

Thanks for asking that.. I have been wondering what these symptoms are. When I look at the whole medical model symptom list, well we wouldn't be multiple at all

From:

You said you're a psychology major, right? I'm assuming this means undergraduate, right? Just needing some perspective.

You're confusing several issues. Somoene above me pointed out the difference between multiplicity and dissociative identity disorder. I know the DSM-IVR says some things as do your psychology texts but the DSM has also listed homosexuality as a mental illness and still lists Transgenderism as a mental illness otherwise known as Gender Identity Disorder, something that has current campaigns to ratify and remove.

Hence, your statements may be valid. I would want to see the statistical evidence you claim and I would like links (either APA citations or otherwise) to the studies you claim. If they are pre-2001 I wouldn't be all that impressed. But I wouldn't sweep in as an expert just yet, especially as you are a non-multiple.

Speaking ONLY for myself, it's highly offensive. I live an existance you (and those in the professional psychology/psychiatry field) can assume and generalize about. Those sweeping assumptions (frought in internalized-phobia by those who identify as multiple and must negotiate their identities in a society that disbeliefs usually with no support or a lack support network) have kept me from fully engaging in life as a multiple.

Assuming whether one produces the "symptoms" or not buys into hte idea that multiplicity is a disease or disorder which those in this community disagree with. If anything relative it's a coping mechanism and WE aren't symptoms but PEOPLE who happen to share a body and a similar life story (in some cases). WE aren't symptoms and some would argue that WE do not present the case-study symptoms of 'dissociative identity disorder' although WE have been thoroughly accredited-ly diagnoses as such and have never been given our discharge/fixed papers.

Perhaps if you keep an open mind, refrain from using terminology such as "symptoms" and "disorder" and "fake" or "faked" and listen hard for a while, you can unlearn the bias propoganda that is much of the schooling on Dissociation/multiplicity. Remmeber - there are few actual multiples writing the literature on it - but rather non-mulitples or seemingly non-multiples probing into the lives of people who are highly stigmatized and highly internally phobic (much like internalized homophobia in the Gay/Lesbian community and the opt to not 'come out' for years).

If you continue this language, you may prick a few too many backsides and become unwelcome. Again, not speaking for everyone in this lj-community, just MY community.

Us - not symptoms, but people.

Please cite the sources you quote too, I would appreciate the reading :)

From:

Firstly, I am an undergradaute - I am not trying to sweep in as an expert. I do not suffer with this illness, only know people who do. I apparently have touched a nerve and I apologize. However if you read the exchange between elenbarthi and myself you will understand what I am trying to express by the word "fakers" and "fake" for they have put it in words I cannot.

As for the study I was involved in it has not been released and unfortunately I am not privy to the complete and total product as the study belongs to my professors and not to me. I believe that this study is still ongoing and is projected to last until about 2007. I apologize for not being able to provide you with reading material.

Let it also be known that I do not agree with many things in the DSMIVR. I consider most of the writers to be conservative twits.

As far as the use of the words "symptoms" you must realize that I am a student of psychology - there is pretty much no sense behind what I say anyways XD

From:

a) this is not an illness, re-read the community info

b) I asked you to cite sources - that means that your information on the criminal and the non-criminal alike. If you can't cite a source, then technically claiming that information as valid is academically and scientifically invalid and fraudulent.

Welcome to academia. And as a psychology student - you've got to abide by the APA guidelines (as do I in my research, hi), so welcome to them.

c) I too am a student of psychology and sociology - Human Development and Family Studies is a Human Ecology field derived from combining psychology and sociology. It's not "home ec" as one would stereotypically argue. If you don't agree with what you say, or if you don't believe in what you say - then why say it? There's sense behind every theory - if one can't articulate that, then they shouldn't propogate it.

Welcome to academia.

d) if you think, as a non-multiple, that "hitting a nerve" in this community means you've "gotten somewhere" you are gravely mistaken.

I don't want to get really angry at you in your first post but you're being extremely ignorant. I know you're still young and early on the track, but if you are going to ignore what people are saying and continue to use offensive terminology after it's been pointed out as offensive and ignorant - then I can't forgive you.

Mods, if I am out of bounds, please tell me, I'll understand.

From:

We're also insulted by the terms "illness" and "symptoms" being applied to us, and multiplicity in general. We are not "sick". We just are.

From:

Instead of continuing to go back and forth and get angrier and defensive, I've decided to email the mods and let them straighten things out.

I'm pretty sure this dialogue is innapropriate (if one is going to be so ignorant) but I could just be over-sensitive so I'm going to shut up now. I've said my piece.

But I'm glad I"m not the only one :) thanks!!

From:

Let me reiterate - My sources are studies being conducted by my professors interviewing inmates. They are not published yet, therefore they are not available. However facts that are similiar can be found here http://influx.uoregon.edu/1997/mpd/mpd1.html I believe that is from the University of Oregon or some such.

Keep in mind I apologized several times for my unclarity in previous posts and replies and have repeatedly stated that I am merely a student of psychology and that I really know nothing of things, but instead of trying to be understanding you persist on getting angry and defensive. I only know what I know, I am not you, i'm not any of these people - i am simply me.

Now I will presently take myself out of this community. I appear to have incited nothing but anger and malice despite my repeated apologies and attempts to explain where I am coming from. And once again I apologize for any hurt feelings or salted scratches I may have cause. I hope and pray you find peace and happiness in your lives.

From:

Whoa, chill. Why not just learn from this (what terms not to use, etc) instead of running away?

From:

Because quite honestly, I'd rathern not have to deal with people who will not teach and then gripe about not having people learn. Or people that teach with harshness and rudeness. I am a firm believer in gentle guidance.

From:

unknown-tales.livejournal.com

May I ask where someone has refused to teach you something? From what I have seen of this community, people are more than willing to talk about their personal experiences if the listener is open to listening to them, and not prejudging them using qualifications that they find offensive.

From:

Awww, hey, stick around; we are really pretty nice here, and you've only met a very few of us so far. Yes, you hit an extremely sore nerve with the whole DID/'symptoms'/illness thing, because most of us have taken an untold amount of shit in our lives about that. Imagine the response a straight person would get if she came in to a gay community and started saying that homosexuality was a 'mental illness' - the response you got here, for doing essentially the same thing, was actually fairly polite and restrained.

Keep in mind, a lot of people may not have ever encountered the kind of fakery you describe - the fad that swept your high school must've been a localized phenomenon, because that sort of thing really doesn't seem to be that common. It's no easy feat for a person to maintain that sort of act - LOL, even if it's a totally unconvincing act - and most fakers in realtime give it up within a month or two at most.

Note that you've also had the bad luck to join the community only a few days after the huge shit-storm I stirred up about Lilspeak, and the very same day we've had all this nonsense (http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/294178.html). Therefore a bunch of people are hair-trigger touchy about any reference to fakery right now, and the fact that you're both a singlet and a psychology student doesn't help.

So... yeah, we're hot-heads sometimes, and this is one of those times. But we ARE mostly pretty nice, and I wish you'd stay and give us a chance - you'll learn a hell of a lot more about multiplicity here than you'll ever learn in your Psych classes, that's for sure.

From:

ksol1460.livejournal.com

This is where I really needed to be here, and I left the computer for a couple of hours and this happens.

Several people have responded to you a bit aggressively, perhaps because you were too persistent in using textbook terms; you also mentioned that you had some difficulty putting your view into words. However, the last time I looked those were not crimes.

I understand that you have not had the best impression of multiplicity from your studies, particularly the interviews with criminals; howver, a good psychologist always begins by allowing the client to tell her what their experience is, rather than dictating it to them.

Community members have recently been dealing with some nasty flack from another community, basically "anyone who thinks they have more than one mind is sick". In addition, we all know what modern psychiatry thinks of people with multiple personalities. Everyone I think is a bit sensitive on that issue right now. Myself& included.

The concepts of natural multiplicity and healthy multiplicity are very new. We only introduced them about ten years ago on our website (http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural), and while several other websites exist now and plenty of online multiples know about these ideas (whether they agree with them or not), this is still a very small subset of the online multiplicity community, which is a very small subset of multiples in general. Most people do not know about these ideas because they haven't been publicised enough; that is what Pavilion (http://www.karitas.net/pavilion) is for, but it's gotten off to a very slow start.

I'm rather surprised that no one posted the links to our website or to the several other websites that present the non-DID view of multiplicity.

I hope that you will rejoin the community and do a bit of reading through previous posts (they go all the way back to 2000) to find out where we are coming from. Multiplicity involves a very wide range of experiences, all the way from textbook MPD and DID (not the same thing!) to multiples who have never had any of the textbook symptoms, never been diagnosed or in therapy, and whose experiences are nonetheless genuine.

It would be my hope that you would stay and learn about these experiences, so that you could communicate them to your professors, and perhaps remember them when you go into practice.

Bluejay Young
http://www.dreamshore.net/amorpha/
http://www.karitas.net/blackbirds/layman/
http://www.bentspoons.com/Shaytar/

From:

I stopped talking because I didn't want to argue with you. I talked with you the way I did because you're a psych. student in college. If you want to be a psych. major you'll have to get used to conversations like this. You'll be challenged to think critically and scientifically back up your claims.

So it was my knee-jerk reactionary discussion formatt.

I'm not going to beg you to come back, but it would be nice if you did - to learn. And were willing to possibly throw down some of the terminology even if it is all that current psych. texts use.

You had some very valid points as people said, there's just somethings that you reiterated that ewre offensive.

I'm sorry you met fake multiples. Here's some real ones.

GOod luck to you.

From:

"However if you read the exchange between elenbarthi and myself you will understand what I am trying to express by the word "fakers" and "fake" for they have put it in words I cannot."

Ummm... I should probably warn you that quoting me might not exactly be the Key To Popularity on this community, due to the enormous kerfuffle (http://www.livejournal.com/community/multiplicity/287290.html) I unleashed here just a couple of days ago. *wry grin* Political correctness of any stamp is not my forté.

Oh, and I'm not a "they"; I'm a "she". My 'brother'

duathir is also a member of this community, and takes no responsibility for my opinions or how they're expressed; if he wants to say something, he'll say it for himself. His twin Crist-Erui doesn't read, so takes no part in anything that goes on online.

From:

szczur-system.livejournal.com

This was extremely predominant in my high school.
Really? For some reason, I find that odd.

From: