(no subject)

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

I've been a part of this communtity for about a year now, and for the most part I'm usually rather quiet, but for a moment I'm going to speak up about a couple of things I've noticed in the past and recently.

I'd like to make a couple of disclaimers so that each you has an idea of where I'm coming from.

I'm currently studying to get a PhD in clinical psychology, so I think that some of you view me--and those from my discipline--as the enemy. However, I'd also mention that I'm also the survivor of sexual trauma deep in my childhood, which I should point out that most people drawn to this field have experienced something in their past that gives them reason to find their interest.

It's that moniker of "enemy," that I wast to try to address. The things I'm putting in quotes aren't necessarily direct quotations and will more than likely be paraphrasings of comments I've seen.


"Psychology isn't a science; it's a philosopy, with little or no scientific backing."

If one looks to the beginnings of psychology only, I'd agree with this, but it's changed a lot, and now it's very much a very critical, empirical science. I'd ask anyone who believes this to find a couple of peer-reviewed psychological journals and glance through them. While psychology has roots in a philosophy, in every top tier journal, you'll find very little in the way of philosophical discussion and much more in the way of statistical analyses and empirical evidence. Further, if one looks to the roots of any science, you'll find philosophy. Just take a look at early theories on why planets moved as they did and how the spheres were moved by "intelligences" as they passed their way around the earth.

"Psychologists are all out to get us, and if you're not careful, they'll have you committed and work on reintegration."

I'm going to work on this a bit backwards. A large number of studies I've read about DID (aka MPD) state that there are usually a large number of malingerers (fakers), and that the actual prevalence rate of DID is rather low (I don't have the literature in front of me, so I can't quote a number). However, while we're trained to be skeptical until we can verify anything empirically, we're also cautioned against just labelling anyone without proof in one direction or the other. It can be likened to the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty." That ideal is something that I've really taken to heart. So, I treat anyone presenting with a problem the same, until I'm given something that can sway my belief in one direction or the other. That's the tack I'd ask everyone to take with me, and those in my discipline. Feel free to have a healthy dose of skepticism, but in the same breath, don't paint me with a wide brush that I don't deserve.

A lot of psychological thought is based around looking for new ways to think about things, and finding new and better solutions. Think about something that was taken out of the DSM with it's last revision. In the not to recent past, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental illness. Because of the work of a lot of people, it no longer is. A lot of psychologists believe highly in "Criterion B," which is the idea that just because a person has what could be termed abnormal behaviors or beliefs, they can't be diagnosed with a disorder, if it's not causing a significant level of discomfort or disturbance to those around them. The example that one of my professors used is that of a person who believes that that space aliens are beaming signals into his brain that cause him to have to go out and help people. If the people he's helping and he himself aren't disturbed, then he can't be diagnosed as psychotic, just eccentric.

Lastly, I'd point out that on several ocassions I've personally come to the defense of people from this community on other communities to correct others or clarify misconceptions. I'm not here to bother anyone; I'm just here to observe and try to bring light to darkness.


I apologize for being so long-winded, but this subject is something I feel very passionate about. I'm working towards my degrees not because I've a desire to make a lot of money; I'm working as hard as I am in order to help others. I look upon my personal path as that of a caregiver, with little regard for how much money I can make doing it. ...and from what I've seen, the vast majority of psychologists have much the same driving force behind them. Most have spent a lot of money getting to where they are, deal with the stress of their jobs constantly, but wouldn't trade what they're doing for anything.

As I've said to others in my personal journal, I constantly fight the monster in my basement. Most of the time I win, other times I don't fare so well, but on a philosophic and metaphoric level if I can take others who are losing more than winning and help them learn how defeat the monsters in their basements, then I'll be a happy human being at the end of my life.

Comments

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

First of all let us state that we are very much in support of good
psychology which we believe has it's roots long before Joseph
interpreted Phaeroes dreams. Some of the best that you can find
in psychology is in russian novels ;-)

Second of all you readilly admitted in this post what most of us
find objectionable about psychology. ...That something is a
disorder if it bothers people around them.

I'm queer - it bothers some people. ...some of them a LOT

I'm multi and that freaks out others just by being there.

I'm very intelligent and that intimidates many people.

It's this type of thinking that frightens many of us in this
community. Many of us have been teased for being different and
being diagnosed as mentally ill because we are different seems
like another version of blaming the victim.

I will grant that there are personality disorders where people
do not act in an adaptive fashion to their environment, but a lot
of difference is just that - difference.

I'd love to talk more with you about your field, have you read
dostoyevski ? Have you read the mythologies of various cultures ?
Do you know the work of Otto Von Kernberg ?

Watching people is a fascinating excercise ;-)

-- Mtribe

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

I'll start with the easy... ;)

I have ready Dostoyevksy. In fact, this semester, I'm reading "The Brothers Karamozov" for a class I'm taking for the English degree I'm pursuing alongside the psych degree. I have read a few mythologies of other cultures, primarily around the southern pacific islands, but a few others as well. Fascinating stuff. Von Kernberg doesn't ring any bells though.

I should clarify what I meant--and how psychology views it--when I said "bothers" other people. That wasn't the best phrasing. For Criterion B to be satisfied, you have to bother them in some way that is a viable reason to be bothered. If they're bothered by your mere existence, or because you're odd, that's not good enough. If they're bothered because an alternate personality has a compulsion to steal from them, or go on speeding binges in the neighborhood, then that would satisfy criterion B. You can't just be different and weird.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Very good ;-) It's my opinion and the opinion of a wonderfull
psychiatrist i was paired with that literature is often a better
psychology learning tool than pshych text books.

Otto Von Kernberg did much of the seminal work on Borderline
personality and Object relational theory. He has written some
wonderfull stuff - one of my favorites is an artcle he wrote
for 'enlightenment' magazine. I believe he was a student of Klein.

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Gotcha... much of what I know about Borderline PD is more modern and based around Marsha Linehan and her work on dialectical behavior training. Since most of what I'm working on is centered around trauma and the disorders that pop up when trauma occurs, I don't end up dealing as specifically with personality disorders.... yet.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

I love Marsha's work. ....Basically clinical buddhism.

The best DBT stuff i found when i was in the intense part
of healing from trauma was in a tantric buddhist book.

"Remember your sky and ocean"

Storm clouds may go through the sky but they do not change the
sky which is ever calm beneath.

You can take out of the ocean all you want but it is not diminished.

The first one is about "non-stick mind" and the second is similar
and about loss.

--- Marina

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Marsha is a wonderful person. I love to watch her work. Working with people who have Borderline personality disorder isn't something is a passion of mine, but I can highly respect someone who's it is.

If you find psychological thought interesting that involves eastern thought, look into Steven Hayes' work with ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy). It's a little bit touchy feely, but it has some really interesting ideas.

[catskillmarina.livejournal.com]

Wow - i would so love to see Marsha in action.

Thing is - i believe that the principals of buddhism
are usefull far beyond the scope she uses them on.

I'll give steve hayes a look. We have been looking at
this subject for nearly 20 years now.

--- Miri of Mtribe

[comixologist.livejournal.com]

As for us, or disinclination towards liking psychiatrists does not necessarily mean that we dislike psychologists. Our step-father is one, and he's a very nice guy (his specialization, however, is perception and consciousness theory - he's into integral psych as well).

As for psychiatrists, we've had countless bad experiences with them, ranging from being pushed into psychiatry by parents (to help "cope" with their divorce, at five) too early to having a long string of bad doctors who just didn't listen. Or doctors who were ineffective. Our immense dislike of psychiatry stems from the fact that we think that the people who become psychiatrists (and this is based entirely on personal experience) have done so in an attempt to work through their own personal issues. We understand that in many cases, psychiatrists earnestly believe that they are helping.

But we are much more friendly towards psychologists, whose general approach is less, "I want to fix this problem" so much as "I want to understand this person/situation/dilemma/higher brain function".

While these are on the whole broad generalizations, they are based on consistantly poor experiences with psychiatry as a whole.

[comixologist.livejournal.com]

... And those are my thoughts on yaoi I fail at html.

[tessagratton.livejournal.com]

What are your thoughts on the idea of healthy multiplicity, as a student of psychology? I don't mean in reference to whether or not it could/should be diagnosed as a "disorder," but rather - what do you know, or what have you learned that might shed light on why it's something so important to many of us? Could there, from a psychological perspective BE such a thing?

(This is also something I suppose we could continue via email, darling, if we don't want to steal away this threat...)

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think I might continue with this on email with you, just because a lot of the responses I'm getting is making me think twice about having posted this...

[gryphons.livejournal.com]

We, for several, would like to hear your thoughts. For pretty much the same reasons as everflame posted.. Then we might comment.. there is just not that much there .

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

I think from a psychological perspective--and some of this goes back to Freud--that there can be such a thing healthy forms of what are termed as disorders. What Freud called pathologies were really nothing more than ego defenses that had somehow gone overboard or out of whack. From my experiences and readings, multiple personalities tend to form as a sort of defense to something traumatic experienced by a person, when they experience over a long period of time.

PTSD appears when a person usually submitted to a traumatic event that occurs over a relatively short period of time, and it's the mind's attempt at processing of that traumatic event. And if the PTSD is significant enough and debilitating enough, then that person may need help moving past it. I see DID to be very much like that. It's the mind's defense some chronic, painful trauma. In many cases, I think that anyone who's faced a serious trauma and overcome it, is better able to deal with additional trauma in their lives.

Since I believe highly in criterion B and the fact that you can't just label someone with a diagnosis unless they're dealing with some significant level of distress, I do believe that there can not only be healthy levels of multiplicity, but also beneficial levels of multiplicity. While there are those multiples who have problems with their alters doing things that harm them and others, I've also seen others who live in very well-mannered headspaces where the multiples have various tasks, dealing with stresses of daily life...and sometimes better than "sane" people.

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

So, thanks for speaking from your little pedastal, but I'm not really that impressed with you.

Actually... that--while not flaming--doesn't sound exactly non-confrontational, as I wasn't attempting to speak from a pedestal. I'd use the phrase about, "there but for the grace of...go I," but that could likely sound even worse. The point is, I've been through hell, and even though it wasn't exactly like your hell or anyone else's, it was hell.

And actually, I wasn't attempting to impress anyone. Essentially I was saying, "Hey, I'm trying to be your ally here, could you please quit taking shots at me?"

...

From my understanding, you can try to apply norms as they currently apply, but they may not apply next year, or the year after, or even tomorrow, so what good are they? In fact, I'm not a big fan of norming data. I'd rather perform a study and try to extrapolate a possibility from there.

Perhaps it's different at other universities, but the one I'm currently in has done a pretty good job of making me question in every class about what exactly is a disorder, should we even listen to what the DSM says, etc. Maybe things are different elsewhere but the line of thinking I'm getting says to question authority and don't take anything for granted, and certainly don't assume that everyone is the same.

[shandra.livejournal.com]

Okay.

Your post just reinforces some of the really bad stereotypes around applied psychology, which is that people who are getting their PhDs think they know what the hell they're doing when it comes to people's psyches & lives.

I'm going to mostly address that - treatment - here.

If people's actual experience is that they have been pressured to conform and to integrate, then that's their experience. Speaking from a feminist perspective, it makes no sense to tell them that they're making it up or that because you're trained not to leap to conclusions that people in your field don't, or that there isn't a systemic issue.

Doesn't mean that there is, either, but if you're truly keeping an open mind you won't feel the need to rush to defend practices.

Mtribe's post covered the issue of normal better than I could.

If you think that /therapy/ - psychological treatment - is a science then I suggest you study some more. But if/when you get into practice you'll probably find that out.

Psychology is very good at statistics, which makes it a social science. And there are some harder core areas like neuroanatomy that kind of makes it look scientific. But it is NOT science as in "if you do X, Y will happen." It just isn't ethically possible to do the experiments necessary. This is outlined rather well here: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

Psychologists have a vested interest in being seen as scientific. But they're not - even less so than medicine, which isn't completely a science either (particularly not in the practice of it).

That most psychologists start out as caring individuals is probably true, but it doesn't mean that they provide good therapy or counselling or anything else. That you got into it because of your own abuse is just one of the core problems with some people in the therapy/counselling/psychology industry - they are on some kind of crusade/working out some kind of personal issue which often makes for VERY bad treatment.

I'm not saying people who've been abused shouldn't be therapists. But they should look TWICE as carefully at their motivations for doing so as anyone else, and they should be extremely, extremely wary of their reactions to anyone with similar issues.

I think caring about people is a good thing but the fact is that the "caring professions" attract a hell of a lot of people who are DESPERATE to feel needed and to feel in control and to feel validated in their rightness and to be able to wave the high moral banner of "but I CARE" over their mistakes.

And frankly sometimes that makes for shitty, shitty work. It shines through in the literature on multiples, in fact, that their therapists were so happy to be "helping" them and making history! and saving them! Just have a look at the guy who wrote Satan's Children for the classic example of that. And I've encountered that kind of therapist - the one whose self-image is based on their superiority complex + their sainthood and they are lousy.

Yes, be caring - but be respectful and thoughtful and humble FIRST please.

Having said that I've mostly known good psychologists who did enter into respectful relationships with their clients. But if you're going to be defending the entire field, please be willing to deal with this stuff too and not dismiss it as "we're trained to be good! Really!"

[asterism.livejournal.com]

I'm not here to bother anyone; I'm just here to observe and try to bring light to darkness.

Frankly, that in itself is bothersome. You are light and we are the darkness desperately craving the light? Or you're clarifying our confused misconceptions? Or you're in some other way superior to our modes of thinking due to your background and your motivations and your studies?

The condescending attitude is what put one of us off of shrinks of all sorts, and that was for depression and anxiety BEFORE she realized she was host to headvoices. You talk as though you're on a lofty mountain and see more than we do here in the darkness of the shadows of the valley, but I see only someone saying, "I've had problems in my past, so I understand," but going on to show how little understanding you have.

Empathy can only take you so far, and then you have to lock it up tightly to prevent it from badly clouding your judgement.


-the Winged Asterism

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Frankly, that in itself is bothersome. You are light and we are the darkness desperately craving the light? Or you're clarifying our confused misconceptions? Or you're in some other way superior to our modes of thinking due to your background and your motivations and your studies?

Actually, the point I was try to make is that I'm not here to diagnose, poke at, or generally mess with people. I'm here to clear up misconceptions.

When I see people here attack anyone with PhD after their name, just because of the title and jump to correct them, I'm just as quick to attack someone else I encounter elsewhere who generalizes all multiples into crazy people who need to be locked up.

When a person is in darkness, they have trouble seeing details and will speak in generalities. If you turn on a light for them, they can start ignoring the generalities and deal with the specifics and the details.

[shandra.livejournal.com]

It's not a matter of the PhD after their names, it's the matter of the 'well, I'm doing a PhD so I'd like to enlighten you...'

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Present company excepted - aside from a couple infelicitous turns of phrase, you seem like a decent guy. But given the sad state of the art on this topic, half the people in this community probably know more about functional multiplicity than ninety-nine percent of psychologists. When one of them - or more commonly, a psychology student, or a psychologist's relative, or a layman who's read a few websites - attempts to "educate" us, it's easy to understand why we get a bit cranky.

- Johnny

[asterism.livejournal.com]

Exactly, and thank you; very well-said. There are indeed reasons why people get cranky and hackles get raised.


-blendy!us

[shandra.livejournal.com]

Especially when they're wrong.

To quote (note who commissioned the study):

"In attempting to evaluate the status of psychology as a scientific study, the American Psychological Association appointed Sigmund Koch to conduct a study, employing over eighty noted scholars in assessing the facts, hypotheses, and methods of psychology. In 1983, the results were published in a series entitled 'Psychology: A Study of Science'. Koch describes what he believes to be the delusion in thinking of psychology as a science: The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion."

[pengke.livejournal.com]

You caught that, too. He's trying very hard to make it sound like he didn't just finished his bachelor's degree.

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Pardon me?

Dislike me for my opinions, but if you think I've somehow tried to misrepresent myself, you're highly mistaken. At no point did I even try to imply that I'd already gotten a PhD. In fact, I blatantly said that I'm working towards those ends, not that I've already gotten there.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I don't dislike you. I don't care. Your opinions are quite understandable given that you've never done any graduate research. You're still in the shiny rose-colored glasses stage.

You did misrepresent yourself. True, you didn't state that you had a PhD but your wording and statements else where were calculated to make it seem like you weren't a newbie. Perhaps you didn't do it intentionally. It could have been an automatic attempt to make yourself seem more credible.

[tinsoldier.livejournal.com]

Ha. I'm hardly a newbie. I'm certainly not shiny around the edges and unclear about the world. If you're as interested as applying that label based solely upon my academic accolades, then you're certainly hoisting yourself upon your own petard.

Perhaps I've not had the academic acheivements that others might have at a much younger age, but there is something to be said for the wisdom of experience. At this rate in my current academic career I've encountered those who've attained great degrees of university success, but haven't the life experiences of a newborn babe.

If you think that I'm still wearing rose-colored glasses then you're mistaking my acheivement in college with some extraneous level of acheivement in life. I'd assure you that you're vastly mistaken, but you'd certainly tell me that I'm ignorant and unsure of what I'm telling you, so? What is the point?

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

Aren't there better things in this thread to answer than some cheap shot? I thought you wanted to get past the unthinking hostility.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

Psychology tries be a science but it rarely is. Part of that is due to the nature of the field. It is very difficult, and frequently highly unethical, to conduct true scientific, empirical studies. You have to use correlations instead to argue causation but psychological research seems particularly vulnerable to forgetting that the two are not synonymous. Further, I have rarely seen studies that factored in the inherent sample biases that come from primarily studying psychological patients and college students, as neither group is reflective of the population at large. In relevance to this community, I have never read any literature on multiplicity that I would consider to be sound science, although I do acknowledge that the research on MPD/DID is unusually poor and not properly representative of psychological research as a whole.

It's not limited to your field, by any means. I've seen dozens of articles in respected medical journals that were completely useless because the practitioners didn't fully understand body-mass index calculations. I myself continue to use traditional medical treatments, despite knowing that there is research suggesting the practice does nothing physiologically. Still, you have to acknowledge the flaws so that you can take certain practices with a grain of salt.

[unicorn-crest.livejournal.com]

I've read through a bunch of comments here... I think I'm somewhere in the middle.

I'm part of a healthy multiple system. We didn't come about from any sort of trauma. We've always been here. And overall I think we've fared no better or worse than someone without headmates.

The one whose name is on the birth certificate wanted to be a psych major for a while - she liked being a listening, non-judgmental ear to her friends and thought maybe people who had no one to talk to might find comfort in her office, should she get one. I wanted to be a social worker for somewhat of the same reason. So we understand some of the motivations - I don't think all psychologists are studying their field out of some god complex or an attempt to heal themselves.

Some are - but hey, diversity of human population. In any population.

We've never had the need to visit a "professional." Even if some cataclysmic event happened in our lives, I don't think we ever would. It's bad enough when members of the general public call you crazy or delusional. The thought that someone - based on their own beliefs - could not only call you crazy but potentially DO something about it is downright terrifying. I'm not saying that all would. But I think you'll agree that, Criterion B aside, there is a LOT of anti-multiple literature and thought out there - mostly based from an extremely biased sampling. So the odds are rather against us.

All that perhaps pointless rambling aside, I'm glad to have you here. Exchange of ideas and knowledge (when it's really an exchange) is always a good thing, IMHO.

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind your innocent-until-proven-guilty reasoning, though. As I read it, you doubt pretty much anything someone tells you until they can prove it's real. (Correct me if I misinterpreted.) Why? And what constitutes proof? If I were to walk into your office tomorrow and tell you I'm a healthy multiple system, what would it take for you to believe me?

I hope that didn't come off as confrontational. I'm honestly just curious. Personally, my version of innocent until proven guilty is the opposite - I tend to believe what people say until I have some good evidence that they ARE faking or lying. Especially when it comes to their perception of reality. Who's to say they have the Ultimate Word on what's real or normal?

[nancy-nensi.livejournal.com]

First of all, good luck to you on your english and psych degrees. The fact that you’ve been paying attention to this community shows that you do care about trying to understand, and that’s a good thing for someone planning to practice psychology - being open minded.

On the other hand, I think you are giving too much weight to “studies” and too little to people who have actually had experience with multiplicity.

A large number of studies I’ve read about DID (aka MPD) state that there are usually a large number of malingerers (fakers), and that the actual prevalence rate of DID is rather low

While I don’t dispute that fakers exist, I wonder how many of the people in the studies who were labeled “fakers” were actually just people who gave up on convincing the therapist that they were multiple? Often the multiplicity is not the cause of whatever problem a person has come to get help with, and the problem can be dealt with while faking being singlet.

That would work out ok for a multiple system that is good at faking singlet, or has one person that is always at the front when seeing the therapist. Non disordered multiplicity could be very hard to spot, if the people don’t want you to know that they are more than one. Just because you can’t spot it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I think the studies had no way of being accurate, no way of actually knowing whether people are real multiples or not.

Of course, they were looking for DID, Disordered multiplicity, not multiplicity in general. Even if the studies were accurate (which I dispute), and the prevalence rate of DID was really low, that would not make the prevalence rate of healthy multiplicity low.

I’m not trying to be hard on you, just asking you to think deeply.

Again, good luck on your studies. I wish you all the best.

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

First, I want to say that I don't see you personally as an enemy. I'm sure there are lots of good psychologists out there who are as rational and accepting as you. At the same time, there are official standards that say my best friend is a disorder, or a symptom of one. I, on the other hand, don't exist, because I don't fit the profile of what an "alter" is like. This is being done in your name, bolstered by the prestige of everything good your science has accomplished. I realize there's not much you can do about it yet, but when you have your degree, I urge you to set your house in order.

Second, I personally think psychology (like most of the sciences) would be better off if it had more philosophy in it. Your Criterion B is a philosophical statement, for example, an excellent one. Most bad philosophy is done by people who don't think they need to be philosophers. I think the people who create the "you're different, so you're sick" paradigm that makes everyone around here so nervous fall into that category.

Third, you speak of multiplicity as though it's necessarily caused by trauma. Why couldn't it occur spontaneously? Some people get depressed because bad things happen to them; other people just get depressed. Some people believe in God because they were taught to from early childhood, other people just believe in God. Is there any reason why multiplicity must be caused by some extreme external stimulus?

- Johnny

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

OK. For starters you should probably look through the psychiatric abuse (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=multiplicity&keyword=psychiatric+abuse&filter=all) and psychotherapy (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=multiplicity&keyword=psychotherapy&filter=all) sections of the community memories.

Can you see why people here might distrust psychologists? Your discipline has a really spotty track record. I personally wouldn't tell one about multiple stuff or weird stuff in general, because there is too much risk. You all vary widely in how you react (as looking through the two links I gave earlier will show), and the worst case is pretty bad.

~j

[ex-pinkmonk.livejournal.com]

i didn't notice a post about it, but i read a link in which many college students are being suspended when they go to counselors in search of help with depression, suicidal thoughts. the college seems to not want the 'responsibility,' and ships them off home for their family to 'deal with'. the idea made my heart heavy. -_-;

[vinik.livejournal.com]

Dude, you just walked right into a mine field. Good luck to you! 'salutes'

-David

PS: Obviously you mean well. Just try take in some of what people have had to say here as a different form of education than the one you're used to. Most professionals we're acquainted with have learned more about multiplicity from multiples themselves rather than through any book or schooling they've ever had before.

[free-agents.livejournal.com]

Regardless of where this whole thread ends up, on behalf of ourselves (since we really can't speak for anyone else) I wanted to say, thanks for taking comments seriously, even on a difficult subject, and not storming off because it is a sensative issue. There isn't much we have to add, since we're pretty 'young' system-wise and community-wise, but reading these types of threads really helps broden the scope, so to speak.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Thank you for decloaking. Again, we ask that mental health professionals who join this community please announce themselves.

[ex-pinkmonk.livejournal.com]

i agree with those staying open, but wary right now. i certainly can't say i've never met an open psychologist - i see a fellow a couple times a year who was EXTREMELY careful and attentive to the medication he prescribes. he's never tried to do any re-integration, recognizes the system and is nothing more than happy for me that i've found a way to function with less turmoil. i've never felt he was trying to harass me in any certain direction - he was the first to really ask, 'well, how do You (All) think You should handle it?' so with that in mind, i have hope - rather than playing doctor fix-it-all, here is a man who does not close off the help of 'others,' and is more of a compassionate mediator.

i'd say stay, read and learn. waving the 'cure' and 'trauma' flag doesn't really win friends, since as has been said, not everyone wants a cure or lives with ghosts of trauma. our systems are valid, and some people (like me) wouldn't want to live without them. life started making sense and being more enjoyable to me after everyone got to the party.

so, just as you don't want to be lumped in with negligent psychiatrists/ologists, we don't want to be lumped into some sybil-like stereotype of the broken person in need of 'healing.' ;) that's all.

[ex-pinkmonk.livejournal.com]

on the flip-side, i was given the snap judgement once that i was borderline, after a whole ten minutes of speaking! (ER psychiatrist) that fucked my head for the longest time - suddenly, i was questioning every emotion. if i went to someone with a problem, i just wanted attention. if i spoke of things i was proud of, i just wanted attention. i couldn't go a day without crying, because i believed what she said - it was like an accusation. at least i was seeing a compassionate therapist who was appalled that the doctor felt it appropriate to tell me that. it took awhile for her to 'talk me down' and start seeing my emotions as valid and natural, that every move i made was not a sociopathic bid for undivided attention. so, you know - there are reasons some of us are gun-shy.

I -would- pick today to delurk.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for coming in and trying to explain. FWIW, I understood your "light in the darkness" analogy as you being in the dark and us being able to enlighten you. I am probably wrong. I am wrong about a lot of things.

Criterion B rocks my socks.

No hostility from this variation on the theme -

C.

[duathir.livejournal.com]

Psychology is not a science, for that its postulates cannot be subjected to proof according to the scientific method. They are opinion based on speculation at best; at worst they are faith-based dogma used as justification for the persecution of those who do not conform to arbitrary definitions of 'normalcy'. Your assumption that all multiplicity - 'healthy' or otherwise - is based in dissociation is an example of an untested and untestable (i.e. faith-based) postulate.

I appreciate that you have revealed your presence in this community, though it comes late in light of the fact that the community profile (http://community.livejournal.com/multiplicity/profile) clearly states that "We ask that therapists and psych students who join the community, even with the most honourable intentions, announce their presence in a public post."

I will not consider you an enemy for no cause but your chosen field of study, but neither should you look to me for friendship, as those I care for have suffered too much at the hands of self-proclaimed 'helpers' of your faith.