Peer pressure and multiplicity

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

After some comments in a few recent threads, I was thinking about the issue of peer-pressure as it relates to multiple systems, and people feeling that their systems/groups/etc "should" be a certain way simply because other people's are.

Have people felt inadequate for having 'too few' people in their systems, or for not having a world or a place where they go when they're not fronting-- that they're 'not multiple enough'? (Or, conversely, depending on where you go, for having too many people or too large a subjective world?)

I know that during the time when the MPD/DID model was the only game in town, a lot of ideas about "what MPD is" derived from the media or from highly influential cases, and a lot of what seemed to be standard or universal aspects of multiplicity were actually the result of patients being told that "everyone has (x)" or being surrounded by other patients who did. If you're pressured for long enough and told "but every multiple has an ISH," eventually you're going to fabricate one just to end the demands, and even believe in it if you have to, if you're sufficiently invested in the doctor continuing to take you seriously.

I don't believe this is going on to the same degree as it was during that time, but the fact that I see people asking questions like "I think there are more people in my system, how do I find them?" fairly regularly makes me wonder why they think there are undiscovered others, and if they're basing it off their own evidence or on the numbers they see in other systems. Or "where is our internal world"-- same deal. (This also works in reverse-- that is to say, attempting to change your system because you think it's 'too weird'; you might want to be careful who you tell about it if you think that's the case, but we've certainly seen the messes which can be left to clean up if you try to bend someone too far.)

I tend to agree with spookshow_girl's comment that trying to force your system to be something it isn't (as distinct from agreed-upon, cooperative change) is an unwise idea. I know there's still the widespread perception that high numbers mean you're "more multiple" than if there are two or three of you, thanks to ideas about "degrees of fragmentation" (and a way to prove you suffered if more abuse = higher numbers). It's a perception I wish I could erase, and in any case, trying to increase the head count often seems to lead to nothing more than labelling someone's separate moods as new people. Trying to change one's system because you feel it 'should' be a certain way, and not because everyone involved wants to work towards change, rarely produces any good results, if the cases I've seen are any indication.

Comments

[tigrin.livejournal.com]

I know I've definitely felt on this community before that I wasn't "multiple enough" to be taken seriously by anyone. It's not something obvious, you just see what seems to be the norm, and subconsciously feel like people won't accept you unless you are like that.

still, I've never been the type to force myself to fit in. kind of accept how things are, and that doesn't make you inadequate. if I've ever wondered if there are others I needed to find, it's only because I felt I had evidence to (for instance, behavior I couldn't attribute to anyone that I was aware of)... not because I felt I needed more or something. I have attempted to create an inner world before, and it just wasn't.. natural, it didn't do anything for me.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

You've stated on more than one occasion that you're not multiple.

[idianshire.livejournal.com]

we had a huge deal with this sort of thing when we first started talking about our multiplicity. This was about damn... 8 years ago and was with multiples of a certain mindset, the medical model. We would say how it was for us only to be told we were wrong, that it really wasn't like that but instead another way, their way. It caused us a lot of pain and damage actually, mostly because at the time we were living in a state of having to be like people told us to be, having to change to fit or belong. It is still there at time but not nearly as intense as it was back then. There were a lot of areas we were told we were wrong in, having another world that wasn't created by imagination, not having a host, having the original inhabitant, the one born in this body dead and gone, children that didn't know or use lilspeak, this list goes on and on, each time we were told we were wrong. It is rather amusing now, to think that we even gave credence to people that had no knowledge of our community regulating how it would be.

It is hard sometimes to speak of other people's experience without relating it to my own. That's why I struggle with words sometimes, I don't want to imply that if it is this way for me then it has to be that way for others. To put it basically I don't want to do what happened to me.

The number thing, I remember when it was common that if you had high numbers you were therefore more abused, and more multiple. The sick thing, at least in my mind then was there seemed to be a common theme people wanted more people, they wanted the prize for the highest number and therefore the highest level of abuse. I still get it sometimes when I give out the number within the Shire, the whole, man you must have been really badly abused, or I wasn't as badly abused I only have... certain number. For me multiplicity has only meant that there is more than one person who can take exectutive control of the body. But I even know some that say being able able to take control of the body, be out, front, whatever you want to call it isn't essential for multiplicty, if the other people reside within. So really numbers for us are unimportant, we only know ours because we have a census every few years in Idia for other reasons.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

We've seen other groups here talk about peer pressure. We've been ignoring it, and growling now and then when someone shifts to attacking. Finding people or groups that can understand how things are for you can be a lot of help when you're in a rough spot. Talking about soulbonds or lilspeak or whatever's getting people riled up this week is fine; calling people names and metaphorically spitting on them is either a nasty kind of peer pressure or an attempt to drive them off.

We do find value in learning about other groups - it offers us new ideas to explore within ourselves and sometimes has been very helpful to us. Exposure to new communication tools and viewpoints has done great things for our community.

Mentioning the ISH brings up a good point. We need a tshirt saying "ROLE != IDENTITY". Roles are cardboard cutouts, abstractions helpful for understanding interactions. A person may hold several of the common roles, or none at all.

Undiscovered others... we've gone rattling about inside a couple times when we've seen signs that someone was in here who wasn't a recognized part of our community. We assumed that was what those posters were doing, but you have a point there.

Heard of the numbers thing, though we haven't been really exposed to it much - sounds like a load to us. It may be more of an indicator of what coping tools were available to (or preferred by) the group.

[laurenthemself]

The only thing I've ever felt kind of uncomfortable about is the fact that while I have soulbonds, and myself and them together make a system, and that's good, they don't front. Ever. I don't even know if there are any other systems here who have only one member who fronts.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

Why do you feel soulbonding is the same as multiplicity?

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Maybe this would make things more clear.

http://www.karitas.net/pavilion/library/articles/s_sbsense_ast0802.html

When I wrote this, I meant that people who have got soulbonds that take the front could regard themselves in the same situation as a small multiple group and have system management to be responsible. Maybe it is not clearly worded enough.

I always thought that if you had soulbonds who didn't take the front, that was plain soulbonding; if your soulbonds did take the front, it was more like a small communicating multiple group. We used to say "a group whose members were soulbonded in".

[kiya]

The thing I have of being "not multiple enough" has to do with being a median system, specifically a median system that has a lot of experience self-conceptualising as singlet. We share a . . . what I want to say is we share a bloodstream, but that's obvious, I'm being metaphorical here . . . in a way that a lot of multiple systems don't seem to.

I can pass as a singlet without doing anything other than not mentioning the plurality. I essentially did that before I realised that the plurality was a useful way of processing my sense of identity -- I've mentioned before that I had names for everyone for ten years before thinking of myselves as plural -- and the only effect was that sometimes other people were confused. (Boyfriend says that the idea of my plurality gave him the right angle to look at to determine that we were self-consistent. He knew there was such an angle, he just couldn't find it on his own.)

But we're not distinct people in the same way that other systems' members are distinct people. We're . . . each something like 3/4 of a person, and the other quarter is everyone else. And sometimes that doesn't feel like it "counts".

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

What an excellent topic! I have to admit that I have felt that I/we are 'not multiple enough'.

Most of the time, 'I' am a sort of continueum between two twinlike people- Morpho and Roman. It is only very, very infrequently that others in the system are present. We go in cycles..cycles with a long time between each return. And sometimes we feel strange, when hearing what regular contact other frontrunners have with those who live in-house.

I've come to realize that the infrequency with which my others come out doesn't have only to do with repression. Rather, I think it has to do with our odd neurology. I think the others come out during spells of a sort- altered states that have to do with irregular electrical patterns. Mind you, that doesn't lead me to believe the others are not real, any more than I'm not.
Morpho

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

That doesn't sound out of the realm of probability. I think some of our switching is due to biochemistry-- we have good communication in-house, but we've never been very good at switching at will.

[unknown-tales.livejournal.com]

I've seen both sides of the number issue (never directed at anyone personally, really, but general remarks). I've seen people say more is better, and then I've seen people say that those who have a larger number of people are wrong because they don't get the same amount of intimacy you would if there were only a handful of people in the system.

?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Let's presume the second part is true. Depending on the amount of time and effort people are willing and able to put into developing intimate relationships with individuals, it can be, both internally and externally. What does that have to do with the first? When did intimacy, internal or external, become a requisite for multiplicity? I mean, I'm not cool with neglect amongst system members, but sometimes you don't have the time to pay the attention to each other that might be warranted by your relationships. In some systems, like large gateway systems, it's impractical to assume that everyone must be intimate friends, just as it is incorrect to assume they cannot. If they can, more power to them, if they can't, it doesn't make them less multiple.

I might be misunderstanding the statement here. Am I missing something?

--Me

[changelyng14.livejournal.com]

Lol!
more people == more needs, more competition for the front, more opportunities for loose cannons, etc.
we've got one that can make new people, and we've watched him do it. we've got a freeze on this, since we really don't need a bigger crowd. (we've got about 14)

also, it seems to affect our ability to come out to people. singlette's seem to be alot less daunted by the idea of getting to know 3 of us then all 14. (we're at about 3 competitive frontrunners lately)

As for innerworlds, most of us would like one. not to be more multiple, but to have somewhere less creepy to hang out. plus we really don't understand what we do when not near the front. we probabaly do something like sleeping (for days, weeks, or months), but a couple of ours describe an 'other side' but they have nothing intelligible to say about it except that memory doesn't cross from here to there(kinda far-fetched sounding to us).

having 'more' for the sake of diversity doesn't work as well as it sounds here. people have to develop, which takes time.

I guess in a system which is predominantly backseaters with a comfy innerworld. jumpstarting new people to populate the place could be fun, but getting new people competent and able to handle front-life is a pain in the butt.

-Lovecry of the Changelyng Tribe

[sabersoul.livejournal.com]

Just lurking through...

we probabaly do something like sleeping (for days, weeks, or months), but a couple of ours describe an 'other side' but they have nothing intelligible to say about it except that memory doesn't cross from here to there(kinda far-fetched sounding to us).

Sounds like the main frontrunner/owner of the body, actually; if she's not fronting or co-fronting, she's usually not available for conversation or anything in-system and doesn't carry memories from then to the front. (But this doesn't happen to me when I'm away from the front, so I dunno what it is exactly.)

[echoesnspectres.livejournal.com]

"Not multiple enough" - well, more like "not clear enough" or "too erratic". What I mean is it isn't always abundantly clear who's fronting, and while we have had a significant number of sudden switches, often they're gradual, causing periods of identity confusion. And the autism may be responsible for phenomena like skills or mental functions just "dropping out" without its being related to who's where at the time.

Also there's "not out enough". While even the shyest among us have a desire to be known as the people we are (whenever we can be "who we are", in view of the above), we get insecure and anxious about using our names (if we know what they are). To illustrate this, a lot of us have their own LJ accounts, but we're rarely sure enough of ourselves to use them. (Separate LJs are important to us because you can change them any way you want without the risk - or certainty - that someone will change it all back. Which does happen when you share a bedroom.) And have you heard of Exposure Anxiety? For some people it's very important to be able to hide behind someone else or behind the system. (Someone's doing it right now.)

And about the multiple/median thing, that controversy isn't over yet in here... someone will insist it has to do with souls, with the paradoxical result that they discuss it mostly in terms of "the way it seems to work" or "the most useful concept to apply to the experience"; someone else will say it's like the difference between so-called High and Low Functioning Autism, which is to say that even if she got it it wouldn't apply; the people who fit least in a "median" arrangement of things aren't strong or frequent fronters; etc.

About numbers. We have a few "suspected existences"; people we know from dreams, or who seem to fit in a place in our head (world segment or whatever you call it), friends of people "in the back", or people who might be called soulbonds. For a lot of them fronting would pose problems, and it would also be problematic if all of them wanted to front. But we do want to know who they are, just to be able to better know what's happening, how things work in here, who's blending with who, things like that. We would like fewer "what is happening now?" moments and a little more clarity.

Same goes for worlds. We do seem to have worlds inside our head, but it's mostly vague impressions. Sometimes you feel like you're sitting on a threshold, which is a bit unsettling (especially when you're not looking for it).

And peer pressure - maybe something like the reverse can also happen, that there's an internal pressure to not seem too multiple. We came out to our mother and most of the time we obstinately say "I" even when it would be possible and helpful to be more specific. And did I mention, haha, we didn't tell her any of our names. We're so half-hearted about these things.

For people who don't know what exposure anxiety is & want to find more about it

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Exposure Anxiety, the Invisible Cage (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1843100517/qid=1125277702/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1655034-2079016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Donna Williams

[eridanusus.livejournal.com]

Some of us get self-conscious when the family asks who they're talking to and they have to introduce themselves for the first time. Then at the other end of the scale, some of our more regular fronters get uncomfortable when the brother comments that they've been out a lot. It's almost as though they feel we should divide the time more evenly.

According to our therapist there are over 90 in our... well, not our system, but our "country", perhaps. There are more over the borders, and there is a group of "natives", neither of which count towards that total. We are all very distinct when we front, and something else that often makes us uncomfortable is when another system says they do not know who is fronting. None of us are quite sure how you can not be sure who you are.

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

Have people felt inadequate for having 'too few' people in their systems, or for not having a world or a place where they go when they're not fronting--
I've definitely felt that way about that latter.

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

If I'm you, then who will be me? - Jewish proverb

We've generally tried to run our system by that principle, at least regarding the 'should' aspect of life.
(On the other talon, our individual system members are usually very good at pretending to be one another, for the sake of not seeming too weird.)

[eridanusus.livejournal.com]

We do that in work or work-related environments. Otherwise we simply do not bother. Even our role playing friends who don't know we're multiple, we do not pretend around them. I spoke to one today and she reacted the same way she would if Chris had been speaking. Then again, we play a character who is multiple, so it's possible they suspect something, but if so none of them has ever said anything.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

We've had things like that occasionally. Does Selene front enough, did having only two make me fake, does Chloe never fronting make her not in my system, why don't I have and use an inner world (oh yeah, I got real hang ups with that one I tell you)

It sucks. I try to just accept how we are, but the inner world thing still makes us twitchy. Peer pressure, alive and well no matter what hopeful headmasters say.

[inshadowhiding.livejournal.com]

having a "subjective reality" has seemed weird for me, but the rest i cannot realy reply to, as they are N/A

to that, even if one is a singlet gets weirdness, , i wonder why people would expect that though of a multiple? is it a " where do you put them all" type query, despite the inherent irrationality of the presupposed sets that make up that question?

and yeah, afaik, i am a singlet, and, not offence, long may it stay that way, enough weird stuff happens around me for my liking, ( and no, i am not giving examples, for a number of reasions)

[undinegroup.livejournal.com]

None of us have a tendency to try to force ourselves to conform to fit in with anyone. Some of us did that in high school and it never worked. It only made us more lonely, though psych meds have a lot to do with that loneliness.

We're pretty sure there are others, besides those who we know of, just because there are times when someone will use the body that has no idea who they are and who is not like any of the ones we know of. We don't have black-outs or anything when we do switch, we just remember everything we didn't do in a dream-like state. Kind of like trying to remember a dream, only it's what someone did yesterday while using the body. We also base knowing on which voice is being used mentally. It sounds weird, but to us it makes sense. We all have different voices and presences, and we can't always verbalize to know. However, the key is that sometimes we have to kind of ask ourselves who we are, especially when we're switching a lot.

We don't think it's good for anyone, systems or singlets, to force themselves to be what they're not. We have to pretend enough to be "normal" when dealing with "normal people", but that's usually not fun. We would probably mentally smack each other if one of us even suggested the concept of making ourselves "like other multiples", just because we're individuals and we each have tried to force ourselves to be something we're not, especially in high school when only one of us was allowed to front at a time.

Yeah. This was long-winded again. I hope it answered your questions though.

-Devin