(no subject)

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I’m sure everyone has read someone’s post on this community or read a comment that made you stop and think, “I don’t believe you.” If you haven’t, either you don’t read the threads very closely or you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here, because there have been some very outrageous claims made here over the years. (But that’s an entirely different discussion.) I want to know what people think when they come across one of these statements that they just can’t believe.

Do you:

A) Think the person is lying.
B) Think the person is knowingly role playing
C) Think the person believes that they are multiple but is probably unintentionally role playing or some other form of imagination
D) Think the system is lying about the experiences
E) Think the system is knowingly or unintentionally role playing the experiences
F) Think the system is adhering to the community’s cultural norms/trying to fit in
G) Think the system probably honestly believes their claims even though another explanation seems more logical to you
H) Think the system probably started out making things up but has since convinced themselves that their claims are true
I) Worry that you might be making things up too or that someone else might think you are
J) Think something else entirely – please share

Also, do your thoughts change depending on why you can’t believe the statement? For example, is there a difference between someone claiming to do/be something that you think is impossible and someone contradicting themselves or claiming that something happened in real life that could not have happened?

Comments

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

J) It's not really my place to make a judgement about someone else, especially about something I can't prove.. if something doesn't feel right to me, I'll either ask questions or just not communicate about it.. who's to say anything about the group I'm in is true for anyone else but us, either? you know? to each their own..

[pengke.livejournal.com]

That would fall under: you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here.

[indigolands.livejournal.com]

I used to be more of a negative person, and thus likely to select something like C) or E), but now that I have more experience I'm a J) sort, if by J) I mean that I don't know everything and will never know everything and anything is possible. Also, it doesn't matter to me where you came from, you're still a person.

There, now, that was nicely incomprehensible.

[wylddelirium.livejournal.com]

I fall along several of these. Sometimes I think they're trying to be "special" or "unique", which would be A), B), C), or E).

Sometimes I get annoyed because I think it's an elaborate form of wish fulfillment.

And I definately struggle with I).

However, in the end, it's J). I have taken a strong stance that self identification is all that matters in a support group. If someone stands up and identifies as being the next incarnation of all four Beatles, I attempt to see things from that perpsective. If I can't, I don't comment and disengage from the post. It's that simple.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

Mostly C, E, G.

I know a certain percentage of people are deliberately deceptive, but it isn't generally clear to me which specific people those are. In the interests of maintaining some semblance of faith in humanity, I usually believe that people honestly believe what they're claiming.

(The exceptions are the people who claim to run around killing each other all the time, where it reflects better on their character if they're completely making it up. Not that it matters because they could go to hell either way for all I care.)

(Also I should probably state that these opinions are mine alone and they aren't shared by Sophie.)

[kiya]

Frequently, I find that 'unbelievable' claims are easily parsable as "This is a metaphorical structure that works for this person/system". Whether or not I believe it to be literal or factual is not relevant, if I can work with what amounts to a personal mythology. (A lot of my own multiplicity is something that I parse as 'personal mythology that works for resolving situations, who cares whether it's factual?'.)

I've also come across people who come across to me strongly as trying to fit cultural norms. I find this moderately aggravating, but not something I worry about greatly.

In general, if I feel that I'm not getting an honest presentation, I don't engage. I have better things to do with my time than chase down suspicions of deception in people I don't actually have to deal with. ;)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

Whether or not I believe it to be literal or factual is not relevant, if I can work with what amounts to a personal mythology. (A lot of my own multiplicity is something that I parse as 'personal mythology that works for resolving situations, who cares whether it's factual?'.)

That's closer to what I meant when I said I sometimes encouraged people to work within the context of beliefs I don't necessarily subscribe to. Rather, I tend to assume that they're being honest about having subjectively experienced it this way, regardless of its literal truth. The one thing I caution people against is talking about their subjective experiences too openly, not because I believe there is anything inherently shameful about it, but because this is the kind of thing that can get you locked away (or called names at best).

I've also come across people who come across to me strongly as trying to fit cultural norms. I find this moderately aggravating, but not something I worry about greatly.

Urk. Yes, I've seen several examples of this-- for example, I once recall someone asking how they could 'get more people in their system.' I asked them why they thought that any certain minimum number was required. The answer was along the lines of 'because we made a place inside and we need more people to fill it up with.' Apparently the belief has cropped up somewhere along the line that having more people somehow makes you more 'real,' and/or that you're required to have a 'place inside.'

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

After having many experiences over the years and meeting many people who have had their own experiences, I prefer to follow the advice of a previous therapist of mine..."Suspend disbelief"
All I know for certain are those things which are real in my head, and some of those things may be unreal to others... so who am I to say what is real to someone else? We all have to deal with what is in our heads no matter what anyone else thinks...

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

Most of the time we're either not interested in whatever they're talking about, or we're just curious about what's going on in their head(s.) If it isn't relevant to why we interact with this group, why should we get stirred up about it?

Deciding whether JoeBob is an attentiondramawhore, simply delusional, or telling a truth isn't necessary for us. N/A. Unimportant.

If someone is convinced they're a reincarnation of Elvis, we're usually more interested in why they chose to talk about it to us.

We could choose to believe that all kinds of things outside our experience must be bullsh*t. And that it was our sworn duty as Reality Police to inform them of that. Sure would limit our interactions with a lot of interesting people though.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

dang, now i needs me a "Reality Police" icon!

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

Depends on what they're claiming, how much they've set off my bullshit meter in the past, and stuff like that. Usually though B/E, C, G, and H. Put them all together and I guess you get J. :p

Mostly though we try to just do the same as wylddelirium said - try to accept their perspective, and it we can't, we mostly just ignore them.

We try not to judge in most cases since we know/fear that some could look at our system and think there are some things about us that are bogus too. *shrugs* Hell, there's people out there that think all multiples are bogus. So who knows.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

*much love to your icon!!*

*laughing!!*

I sing sexy things to myself while I'm dancing!! lol

[appadil.livejournal.com]

J)Assume that it's real/true to them unless I have reason to think otherwise. (And I disagree with your assertion that such a point of view MUST be based on lack of critical thinking- it's just not necessarily your accustomed form of critical thinking. Though if I'm correct in surmising that you're a universalist, there's probably little I can do to convince you that phenomeonlogist rationalism count as rational.)

First off- because I'm a phenomenologist, I don't read any of the ideas put forth by people here in terms of 'claiming to do/be something', but rather in terms of 'experiences themselves as doing/being something'. There's no question to me of whether or not what they're talking about is 'real'- if they're being honest, if it's experienced as real, it's 'real' in all the ways that actually matter to my interaction with them.

As far as I'm concerned C, E, G, H, and J are essentially the same thing- "unintentionally roleplaying", "believes their claims", and "has convinced themselves" are all forms of "experiences this as true". I'm not interested in 'is objectively true' at all- I'm not particularly certain that such a thing is possible. All reality is experienced through perception, so the only realities that really exist are experienced realities. My experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is unbearably loud' is no more or less real than a synaesthete's experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is blue' or your experience of being many. Just because it's outside of the realm of anything which I could sensibly imagine experiencing doesn't make it impossible to experience. To some people, your experiences are likely just as unbelievable.

Certainly there may be cases of A, B, D, and F running around here, but how are we to discern them without turning things into a witch hunt and hurting people who don't deserve to be persecuted like that? Is their presence causing you or anyone else harm in any sort of way? If they're being disruptive or abusive or trollish, they should certainly be banned, but the same is true of anyone legitimately multiple who engages in the same behaviors. In any case, there's not usually any real way for me to discern the pretenders from the oddballs over the internet, so the best option is just to give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, all that I have to go by is the experiences they present to me, and their truth or lack of truth has no effect on me either way, so their claims are all that's relevant in my interaction.

If someone is contradicting themself, or is pretending very obviously, or is someone who I recognize from elsewhere as a troll, I'll certainly doubt them -though I don't really feel it's my place to call them on it in most cases, as I'm something of an outsider here. You might have reasons for this which I don't know, but I would experience this repeated concern with people's believability a waste of time and emotional energy. Mostly I just treat them the way I do any of the other people here who I've decided aren't worth talking to, and I ignore them.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

...

If I want to claim that x is objectively true, I say "x" or "I think x" or "I believe x".

If I want to claim that x may or may not be objectively true, but that it is a useful metaphor for me or that I have an internal experience in which it seems that way to me, I say "x is a useful metaphor for me" or "I have an internal experience in which it seems x".

In my view, making the first sort of statement when you really mean the second is just dishonest.

[little-heather.livejournal.com]

I agree with what chaostiny said above. Also, when I think something a person or system has said about themselves isnt possible, I usually try to remember that there are plenty of "singletons" out there who dont believe being multiple in any form or fashion is factual or possible so who am I to judge anyone else.

[vinik.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm gonna try to answer this very carefully so that it isn't misunderstood (however, I am aware that someone almost always misunderstands something in print :p):

Most of the time, I give people the benefit of the doubt. If they say something is true for them, then I usually leave it at that. We pretty much think in here that if a person believes they are experiencing something and it's not hurting anybody, then it doesn't matter whether it's imaginary or not because it is significant to their life no matter what it's origins. Everyone has their own life path and it's up to them to figure out what's what.

We do reserve judgment for those who are discovered to be using their circumstances (real, imagined, or fraudulent) to harm and manipulate others. The whole bit on 'life paths' still applies here, but it is very hard for us to understand at times why anyone would do such things and so we feel anger and resentment when it happens.

-Morgan

[pthalo]

it really depends on the situation. I guess a mixture of C and G. I do run across things that interfere with my suspension of disbelief but I often just don't respond to them. If it's done for attention seeking purposes, they don't need my attention. If I'm wrong and it's true for their system, I'm probably just doing more harm than good with my comments.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

There are very definite cultural norms within this specific livejournal community and within the multiplicity online community in general. There's a separate set of cultural norms for multiples in the DID-sufferer-support communities both on and off-line.

Nothing brought on this post. Just curious.

[fourninesix.livejournal.com]

Different combinations of these options, I guess.... but mostly A + B. It's a daily thing over here. I'm probably too critical, but oh well...

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Well, it varies according to the specific instance. Some people, I think are probably deliberately lying, and in a non-RPG community I don't see any difference between "lying" and "knowingly roleplaying". I don't see any way to determine the difference between belief and imagination (if such a difference even exists in any but an abstract semantic sense) and I don't see how the arbitrary standards of so-called "objective reality" can be applied to another person's subjective inner experience.

I find it very annoying when individuals within a 'system' present themselves as speaking for everybody else in it, because I think that's dishonest - if they expect to be considered and treated as individuals, they need to act as individuals, which means speaking only for themselves. It's particularly dishonest (as well as rude) when people 'switch' in the middle of a dialogue without disclosing the fact that they've done so - if I'm talking to someone, I'm talking to that person, not to their assorted Kin. I tend to doubt the actual multiplicity of people who do that - I think it's mostly a passive-aggressive ruse for avoiding taking responsibility for one's words.

A whole lot of people, not just multiples, believe things I think are not logical. I used to argue with them about it, but I've mostly given that up, because there just isn't any point in it: irrational or unverifiable beliefs are generally impervious to logic. This is because people rely on such beliefs for their emotional security, and aren't about to give up that security just because it's illusory.

I don't understand how people can start out by knowingly making something up, then 'convince themselves' that it's true. I realize that people do this, but I don't *get* how it works - do they somehow block their memory of having made it up, or what? People who do this seem highly untrustworthy to me, because if they've blocked or changed their memory about one thing without knowing they've done it, who's to say they won't do the same about other things?

I don't worry that I'm 'making things up', but I do subject my beliefs to critical examination, i.e. "Why do I think this is true? How would I be able to tell if it's not?". There are a whole bunch of things for which I have no way of determining whether or not they're true, and even though I may act as if I think they're true out of custom or convenience, I don't forget the fact that I really don't know.

I assume that most people don't believe anything that conflicts with their established belief-systems, whether their belief-systems are rational or not. Therefore I assume that people who believe it's not possible for more than one person to share a single body will believe I'm lying and/or delusional if I tell them about my 'brothers'. The obvious solution is to just not tell them.

This is probably going to get me blasted, but under the heading of "think something else entirely", I think that children, people dependent on psychoactive drugs, and people with mental or emotional problems severe enough to require long-term professional care or State support aren't 'reliable reporters'. This doesn't mean I automatically disbelieve everything such people say about their experience, but it's certainly a factor I take into consideration.

I don't see the difference between "claiming something I think is impossible" and "claiming something that [I think] could not have happened in real life". I've personally experienced enough things that I didn't think possible until I experienced them to make me wary of anybody's opinions (including my own) about what is or is not possible.

However, just because something may be possible doesn't mean it's probable, and as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Since there's no way to prove anything online, I neither believe nor disbelieve most of what people say here.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I don't see the difference between "claiming something I think is impossible" and "claiming something that [I think] could not have happened in real life". I've personally experienced enough things that I didn't think possible until I experienced them to make me wary of anybody's opinions (including my own) about what is or is not possible.

Well, you claim to genetically be elven but since I don't believe in elves I think that's impossible. Now, I don't think you're lying and I respect your belief even if I personally find it a bit nutty. So, it would be valid for me to say that I read your statements about being an elf and think, G) Think the system probably honestly believes their claims even though another explanation seems more logical to you. It would also be valid for me to say that I read your statements about being an elf and don't think anything about believing or disbelieving you because I'm reading it in terms of your subjective experiences and beliefs.

Not too long ago, a member of this community claimed something that could not have happened in real life. They claimed that they contacted the governing body of their professional organisation over a weekend to verify the ethical nature of their comments to this community. There is no possibility that this could have taken place because they wouldn't have been able to contact the organization at that time and the organization wouldn't have been able to respond that rapidly. Now, this one is a very clear case where the member had to either be lying or delusional. It's less clear when you run into a multiple that says that they're physically pregnant but when the guys use the body they're not pregnant anymore. Obviously, this can't physically happen but it's possible that the multiple in question might believe that it's true.

That's the difference between the two scenarios.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

I think anybody who *hasn't* at some point has issues with belief on this community probably is *too* open minded.

I mean, I think we all know Ia ccept some pretty far out stuff, but that shouldn't remove anybody's ability to wonder about these things.

I also think every situation is different. different letters (from your examples) for different cases.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

by "too open minded", do you mean being "gullible"? because I'm not sure if being too open minded is completely a bad thing.. it sounds like a negative-positive wrapped up in one.. interesting.. :)

open-minded (to me) is something positive.. add the "too" in front of it and it turns into something negative; a kind of gullibility.. don't mind me, I like to think about things like that.. *grin*

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

I've read several things on this community that I don't necessarily believe-- things that seem unlikely at best to me, and/or that contradict my own spiritual beliefs, and/or resemble the behavior of people I've known in the past who were deliberately making a play for attention. I tend to assume more of them are sincerely misguided than making a deliberate attempt to lie and manipulate others.

Usually I don't address it for two reasons, if they seem to be sincere,
a) if they're just doing something like roleplaying or naming different parts of their personality or experimenting with a new identity, I figure their ability to keep up the act consistently, if these aren't real people, will give out after awhile.

b) if they're deliberately acting or making a play for attention, I figure someone will call them on it eventually. (OTOH, maybe I'm overly optimistic in assuming frauds will always be spotted by someone.)

c) if it has to do with someone believing certain things in a religious/spiritual sense that I don't, I don't want to address that at all, unless they try to push their belief system on me or insist it applies to everybody.

On the other hand, I might also encourage them to work within the context of a belief system I don't subscribe to, if it seems to be working for or helpful to them.

For example, is there a difference between someone claiming to do/be something that you think is impossible and someone contradicting themselves or claiming that something happened in real life that could not have happened?

In the first instance I'd be more likely to see them as sincerely misguided; if someone repeatedly contradicts themselves in their claims I am more likely to suspect that someone is trying to pull something over on me (partly because I've been led on by a few people in the past, and all the discrepancies in their stories started to add up after awhile).

Roleplaying as a Means of Creation.

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

Roleplaying can be a means of consciously creating inner personality aspects. I created my thoughtforms through roleplaying, and I've had them around for fifteen years (with some changes in active roster).

I think the distinction is not so much "roleplaying vs. non-roleplaying" as "serious identification vs. entertainment", although there are grey areas between the two, as when someone creates a purely fictional character which then develops into a soulbond, identity-bond or similar autonomous entity (the terminology depends on the person(s) and their belief system).

Inner roleplaying has always been a part of my identity. I can recall doing it almost as soon as I could use language. I regard identity as a very fluid thing, more or less what a person believes, imagines and wills it to be.

As for finding other people's stories unbelievable: my opinion on this is that in subjective reality, as in dreams, anything is possible. Now, this does not mean that everything is equally true in intersubjective terms. Not all things "show up" in the shared, public world. So, a person can claim that an experience has more "objectivity", or intersubjective applicability, than it actually does.

I don't expect others to "believe in" my thoughtforms, necessarily. They aren't things that can be weighed and measured. They're a part of my life in the way that ideals, values, imagination, etc., can be a real and valid, if unobservable, part of a person's life.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

One of us tends to think that people are either lying or stupid. They're stupid because either they're not smart enough to figure out that something they believe isn't literally real or they're dumb for continuing to believe in something that isn't literally real. Although if he's pushed, he'll admit that experiences can still be important even if they're not real. It's a bit hypocritical.

I tend to assume that there's some explanation, usually a combination of E/H or G, for why someone would say something that I can't believe. Even when I think someone is making things up, I generally leave the possibility open that they might genuinely believe it. Although, I do sometimes think that people are silly or guillible for believing the things they do.

[temps-vivant.livejournal.com]

In general, the average conclusion in this system seems to be F, G, or J, and a complete avoidance of A-C. I know at least one or two in here who'll admit they've rolled their eyes and decided D from a few posts, but none of us ever conclude that a statement we find unlikely means a system isn't multiple.

Regardless of what, we don't say anything. I mean, there are members of this community who've said publically that they don't believe we're a system at all. So really, not only would calling someone else's bluff look amazingly funny to those members, even on something far smaller, but we're also just really not inclined to put someone else in that position without something other than LJ comments at stake.

I've also personally noticed a lot of inverse-F, which would be where people are apparently not believed solely because they don't fit the community norms, and a lot of All or Nothing logic, where if a system seems to be lying about one thing, they're concluded to be lying about everything, including their multiplicity itself.

Truth is, this comm is anything BUT over-tolerant. A whole lot of members seem to think otherwise, though, and I wish I knew why. Otherwise, why's there a post about "people with crazy beliefs" just about every two weeks or so? Granted, your post is not like, say, the kind of thing that jadedmosaic posted-- you're actually asking people for their input on things --but does it really matter if someone says something in a post or comment that makes you stop and think, "I don't believe you"? That happens in every community. It happens on religiousdebate as often as breathing. I'll bet it even happens in baaaaabyanimals over whether or not pictures are photoshopped. ("That kitty and monkey are SOOOOO photoshopped! There should be reflected light from the monkey on the kitty's fur!!!")

What I'm saying is it's an LJ thing. Maybe even an internet thing. But I'd rather not pay that much attention to it, in lieu of other topics that I'd rather see.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

This isn't a post about crazy beliefs. People can say very mundane things and someone else won't believe them. Like you said, it happens in every community. In other communities though, people's responses to disbelief are much more clear cut. You either believe the pictures are photoshopped or you don't. Here, there are so many different ways you can react just because of the subjective nature of the experiences being described.

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

Well said!

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

I just want to add something in here that I probably should have said in my first reply... A lot of the things talked about on this community I had heard about or talked to other multiples who had experienced them (from their point of view) long before I ever got online almost 10 years ago. I think the internet just allows for people with similar beliefs and experiences to gather en masse and discuss...

[shandra.livejournal.com]

Unless someone wants me to give them money, time, or try to represent me ("all multiples are/have X" where X is not "more than one person in a body") in some way, I don't usually feel the need to make a judgement call.

In the past at times I felt I was being required to believe something, but I've come to believe that was more me projecting my anxiety - a legitimate anxiety built up over a lifetime of being disbelieved about a whole host of things, for sure.

But not appropriate in that context.

I think it's sometimes helpful to point out internal contradictions like - "I am the all-powerful archangel, but I can't hold down a job" but really, it's not my place either to validate or invalidate anyone's claims. I may or may not want to get to know someone more but that's dependent on so many factors that believability seems like a minor player.

[threedog.livejournal.com]

A, C, G, and H, depending on the situation. Of course for me, it's a matter of "do I need to tell this person they're saying something that sounds crazy to me?" Generally if it's a stranger or someone I'm not really aquainted with, I keep my feelings to myself. But if it's a friend, I'm likely to say something.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

I generally tend towards option (G). I generally assume that the person making the claim believes their claim to be true.

While I might question them about it, I will never outright say I think they're wrong (even if I think they're wrong). Because, let's face it, my own beliefs are likely even more weird than theirs, and neither they nor I can prove any of them. And besides, I'm the first to admit that I don't know everything about how the universe works. So even something that SEEMS outrageous, may not be. I suppose that means I have a bit of (I) going on there too.

[ohnosir.livejournal.com]

Now, I'm sure some people here have questioned my multiplicity, though I am not too sure of the accuracy of the term myself.
Generally, when I run across something, I may think "they have it wrong/they're confused about this", but it's very hard for me not to believe a claim I see here, unless it's just totally stupid and outrageous. In my experience, lots of things are possible, and I try to keep as open a mind as I can.

~DL