Multiplicity

ike, i constantly argue with myself in my head, but i've always considered it me.

Dizzy does this to/with herself a lot. But she's still just one person.
In fact, I believe a lot of 'normal' people talk to themselves about certain things (whether or not to do something, I'd expect). It doesn't make you plural.

For what makes you plural... see Johnny's post above.

From:

Did you know that they are learning that Borderlines are multiples tha were too old to split? Most borderlines talk about having symptoms of multiplicity, moreso than socalled normal people, without having individuls inside.

Weird huh?

So yeah you prolly relate like hell to multiples.

From:

what does too old to split mean? when I was born from Kasia and Amirah they were both adults but I feel I am more their child. is splitting when someone creates a child? Kes

From:

On a trauma model there is believed to be an age where the first dissociation has to occur, usually before 5. if one has the capacity to split but doesnt need to until after this age then they are too old to split

From:

what if someone splits without trauma and are older? Kes

From:

which is why i said on the trauma model.

the natural born model is an anything can happen one, huh?

From:

why is the age 5 if there's trauma but any age if there is no trauma? I still don't understand why it matters what the age is. Kes

From:

with natural you already are, arent you? whether or not someone comes out is besides the point, right?

From:

I'm not multiple myself but others in our group are. I suppose I'd be a single mind in our group. Kes

From:

Believed by whom? I've seen too many different cutoff ages cited for this paradigm. That's one reason I don't buy it. I don't doubt that some systems originate in trauma-splitting, but that doesn't prevent the 'official' model from being faulty, based as it is largely upon conjecture.

It seems to me that if one had the capacity to split at a young age, that capacity would not be lost, although it might become dormant. The only capacity I know of with an even partially proven cutoff age is language acquisition.

Again, please, could you cite your sources?

From:

i wish i could. they were found on line as part of thesis papers that were published, but i didnt save the link.

From:

Can you find it? Or do you not remember anything? Part of the title? Author? Even publisher?
I want to read these studies.

If I can't get my hands on them, I'm probably going to disregaurd this theory. Dizzy's come across too many people claiming they're backed by studies when they are not.

From:

Was it this? (//www.heart7.net/mpd-did-iic.html)

Interestingly enough, that says there's a difference between MPD and DID. I wasn't aware there was one (all of my books say it was just a term change).
I can find a few other things that say 'usually before 7' (or 5-9 in one case). But there seems to be very little support of it, or else my little google search would have turned up a lot more.

From:

It might have been. Allison wrote a lot of stuff so it could be his work that is bouncing in my head

From:

If the idea of borderline personality disorder arising from proto-multiplicity comes from Allison, I'm not encouraged to believe either in its validity or in its credibility among mental health professionals.

He does put difference between MPD and DID; here, he explains how he witnessed controversy between academicians and clinicians (http://www.dissociation.com/index/definition/) which led to the DID diagnosis and the abandonment of MPD as a valid condition. Whether or not one accepts fully Allison's doctrine on the origins of MPD, the article on definitions is still interesting.

From:

Borderline and multiplicity was not an Allison, age was.

I started a new topic.

From:

Probably you should not state such a controversial idea with such certainty then until you do have somewhat to back it up. Like most psychological ideas it is liable to be based on a few doctors' interactions with a handful of clients, which is hardly an unbiased sampling.

From:

youre right. that was dumb and i was unprepared.

i am suprised that this is such a controversial idea.

From:

Dumb, not at all. Unprepared, yes.

Perhaps in another community or forum, where the authority of modern psychiatry goes relatively unquestioned, this idea might not be so controversial -- although I'd at least be prepared to give the name of the doctor, or the journal where the study was published, or something.

Here, because of members' wide range of experiences in terms of group structure as well as origins, such an idea is likely to be met with more skepticism.

From:

It seems to me that if one had the capacity to split at a young age, that capacity would not be lost, although it might become dormant.

I agree with this. Knowing what I know of the human mind (though, admittedly, not much), there's no reason that the ability to 'split' would stop at such a young age. One could argue that it had to do with the development of the mind, but if so I'd point the 'cut off age' at somewhere much closer to sexual maturity.
There's an age around there that once a human reaches, if they have not already learned a (human) language they become incapable or fully learning it. Happens in feral children. I don't have any sources now but I can find it.
But, regardless of that, it seems more likely to me that the ability to split wouldn't stop as one gets over, but become more likely. That, however, is based on my system members and thus obviously flawed.

From:

Could you please cite your source for this?

It's just that I've never heard of this idea before -- it must be quite recent -- and that I've always been somewhat skeptical of the idea of a cutoff age, even within the traditional trauma-dissociation-split paradigm. I'd like to know more.

From:

it isnt hard fact yet, but just studies being done with those that treat bordelines are suggesting this.

From:

What studies?

From:

Citation please? I've an excellent science library at my disposal just down the street. I would love to read peer-reviewed journal reports on this.

(deleted comment)

From:

it is believed to be around 5, some people are older but not often for the first split.

From:

nat-leia.livejournal.com

I would like to receive more information on "most borderlines talk about having symptoms of multiplicity"- could you please pinpoint me to the communities/newsgroups/email lists etc. that would state this 'fact' more clearly? Apparently, hearsay isn't what I consider most relevant information to my findings...

-S.

From:

Too old to split?

What's the limit? 90? Dizzy's split at 24-25, and keeps trying to split lately (26).

I need your sources in order to take this statement seriously.

From:

too old for the first split

From:

See, the problem with that is no one here split /at all/ until at least middle or high school. Even then its theorized. The first noticeable split was in the body's 20s.

(deleted comment)

From:

I wouldn't count you as a split, and certainly not a trauma caused one.

From: