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 never said I was. Heard of median? What's wrong with being inbetween? Am I not allowed to voice my opinions when I'm not one or the other? I don't believe you are qualified to tell anyone they are or are not multiple. Even if you had a degree, it wouldn't make a difference.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

There's nothing wrong with inbetween. It just means you're not multiple. If you aren't multiple, you shouldn't post as though you are. In a community that's open to everyone, it's very easy to post your opinion as what you are without wavering back and forth depending on the post. You just say, "I am not multiple but I experience blah blah blah this way."

And I didn't tell you whether you were or weren't multiple. You were the one that came the conclusion that you weren't multiple so stop whining.

[tigrin.livejournal.com]

I said absolutely nothing in my post that said I was multiple. The original thread did not ask for only multiples to reply. It asked for discussion in relation to any sort of multiple group. So there was absolutely no reason for me to clarify whether I am or am not multiple. obviously being inbetween leaves me to feeling as if I am not "multiple enough" to be accepted by people like you in this community. but just because I feel that way, doesn't mean I'm saying I'm multiple, or that I need to be. NOWHERE in the post did I say I was multiple. so your post is completely pointless and just trying to stir up a bunch of drama for no reason. but that doesn't really need my pointing out. you do not own this community, and therefore, there is absolutely no reason for me to abide by your rules.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

Their comment did have a point. Just not one beneficial to you or to the community as a whole.

It makes them look 'smart' and you 'dumb and whiny' in front of them and their groupies. Once you are classed as whiny once, I recommend avoiding any replies to you by pengke, for the sake of your sanity. Responding to such comments may give you a feeling like talking to a brick wall.

Doctor, heal thyself. Yes, I'm guilty of it. But I got over getting worked up over this rubbish after pengke jumped my intro post to soulbonding over a year back. Yeah, we got history *laughs*

Don't let it get to you. It never changes, it never stops, but it *does* eventually get old and predictable. They pick things, they twist them to try and make you look like a drama whore, blah blah. It is seriously not worth getting worked up over, but does make for a good night's entertainment if the TV is lame.


Sucks, yeah, but they've never outright flamed enough to get their asses banned. They always seem to just about toe that line.



NOTE: THIS IS NOT CALLED WHINING. THIS IS CALLED "CHATTING". ALSO, "DISCUSSION," AND "RECOUNTING OF EXPERIENCES."

Thank you for your attention.

[tigrin.livejournal.com]

Your intro post, too? Same with mine. except my intro post was here. and that was two years ago. talk about a long memory.

I'm not all that worked up. I'm kind of over and above this whole thing. I don't believe I can persuade pengke to feel any differently about me. some people just aren't that open to change. especially if it means they were wrong. *shrugs*

I'll keep all that in mind. thanks, I really appreciate it.

[ex-senza6.livejournal.com]

Hey, for what it's worth, we've never particularly seen your posts as in any way misrepresenting yourself or pretending to be multiple; for the most part you just came off to us as someone who's exploring the idea of plurality and who experiences something in that general area.

obviously being inbetween leaves me to feeling as if I am not "multiple enough" to be accepted by people like you in this community.

Yeah, we can sympathise with that; we've never yet managed to figure out if we're truly multiple or just some odd variety of midcont/median. That said, it does say right in the info that everyone's welcome regardless of how they identify, so... Personally I find it interesting to hear viewpoints from median/midcont/soulbonding systems as well as actual multiples.