(no subject)

[jew87.livejournal.com]

We got diagnoed with DID last week but there's problem. We don't know what caused this. There is no memory of trauma. None of us remember any trauma. Is it possible for us to have DID without Trauma? Or is it likely that oneday we'll remember something? The idea of this is scary.

Comments

[andrianna.livejournal.com]

It is quite possible to have DID or MPD w/o Trauma.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

Yes it's possible that there's no trauma (though I'm amazed you managed to get a diagnosis without trauma; our doc flatly denied DID as a possibility *because* we have no abuse history).

[jew87.livejournal.com]

Well our doctor is just sure of it i guess....maybe we seem like others with DID

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

I think some therapists are diagnosing DID because it's the only "official" diagnosis for multiples. You're not the first psych client to be diagnosed with MPD or DID simply on the grounds of being multiple, whether or not they have trauma or fit any of the classic patterns. If multiplicity itself is your problem -- e.g., a messed up operating system -- then the diagnosis is at least somewhat appropriate. Did you enter therapy for help with in-system communication and operating system difficulties?

DID, according to the ISSD, is a condition in which the client believes herself to be multiple, although the treatment guidelines clearly state that persons in multiple systems do not exist and that there is really only one person. You will have to see if this is appropriate or suits your particular situation.

It is possible to be multiple without any sort of trauma being involved -- some people are simply born this way. Not all multiplicity is MPD or DID.

Since you don't remember any sort of out-of-the-way traumatic events as a child, things that would have caused a split in the classic, Wilburian MPD style, it's best to be honest with your therapist about this. But also be careful about what she leads you into. If she starts pushing you to try to remember things, if she claims you can't "get better" (i.e., integrate yourselves) (Do you guys want to integrate, or just improve communication?) until you remember, frankly I'd find another therapist. It's not likely that she'll try something like that, though, with all the scandals about therapists doing that sort of thing in the 90s.

I'm more amazed that you were able to get a diagnosis at all in the present psychotherapeutic climate, where clinicians get fired for diagnosing clients with DID because "there's no such thing".

KTJ

Re:

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

Is Disassociative Identity Disorder essentially the new term for MPD, or do they exist as seperate diagnosises?
And am I correct in thinking that with the old MPD definition, the person is defined as really having seperate 'personalities', even though these 'personalities' are abbherations that must be corrected out of existence?
I'm tempted to say, fuck em, fuck all these definitions..what do we care what a panel of old white male psychiatrists think of us..what do they know? However, there are indeed quite a few multiples who feel they need help and seek out mental health professionals, myself included. (I'm lucky..my therapist hates the DSM..thinks its just a tool for mental health professionals to feel they have power over their patients.)
It is best to be as vigilant as possible about how we are defined, how mental health professionals are viewing us, and how they envision the best possible outcome of our therapy..lest we find they are gently shepherding us towards...integration!!!
In the classic trauma based model, Wilburesque that is..how narrowly do they define the trauma that would cause such a 'split'?
According to these practitioners, is childhood molestation, even incest, the only thing that would...how would they put it...cause a child's mind to break into pieces? (I hate that whole fragmentation view of it..didnt mean to sound nasty or glib, though. I'm sure there are multiples who feel that they really are fragmented, and I dont want to be the language police.) Or could neglect alone be sufficient trauma?

Re:

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

DID is not just the new term for MPD. The treatment guidelines have changed and it is now emphasized that there are really not separate persons in the system -- a multiple is just one very confused individual, as follows:

"The DID patient is a single person who experiences himself/herself as having separate parts of the mind that function with some autonomy. The patient is not a collection of separate people sharing the same body. The terms personality and alter (short for alternate personality) refer to dissociated parts of the mind that alternately influence behavior in DID patients. Some clinicians prefer terms such as disaggregate self state, part of the mind, or part of the self.

"Additionally, the DID patient is a whole person, with alternate personalities of adult patients sharing responsibility for his or her life as it is now. In the psychotherapeutic setting, therapists working with DID patients generally ought to hold the whole person to be responsible for the behavior of all of the alternate personalities."

http://www.issd.org/indexpage/isdguide.htm

The treatment guidelines nowhere state flat out that this is caused by trauma, but they clearly make the assumption that no one would ever become multiple except through trauma, plus that all multiplicity is dissociative by nature.

I must add that Peter Barach, head of the ISSD, who wrote these guidelines, spent several years on Usenet's alt.support.dissociation, where he witnessed all manner of hysterics, theatrics and imitative behaviours (a lot like the historical "epidemics of hystero-epilepsy" in the literature) on the part of self-described multiples. Most of these people had the official diagnosis and had spent years in Wilburian or Braun-style MPD therapy. ASD was the birthplace of spoilers, splats, trigger warnings and lilspeak. It's no wonder Barach has devoted his life and work to wiping out the kind of sick paranoid behaviour displayed by many ASD devotees, and now believes that all multiplicity is a fantasy illness.

Wilburian multiplicity is based on Freud's seduction theory; he believed that all neuroses, including MPD, were caused by childhood trauma, usually sexual, often by a parent. He also thought a lot of trauma was caused by witnessed abuse (spousal battery for instance) or by accidentally witnessing the parents having intercourse (kid doesn't understand, wonders if Mom's being harmed, doesn't feel free to ask). Wilbur picked up on all of this. You can see it in Sybil.

In a study on child abuse -- I'll have to look it up, I don't have the book in front of me -- emotional neglect was found to have far deeper and longer-term effects even than sexual abuse, but you never hear of people claiming to have split as a result of that.

"It is best to be as vigilant as possible about how we are defined, how mental health professionals are viewing us, and how they envision the best possible outcome of our therapy..lest we find they are gently shepherding us towards...integration!!!"

Damn straight.

[hurricanrana.livejournal.com]

i'm starting to think there aren't too many 'rules'. Trauma isn't one of the things that's required to make a diagnosis. However...just because you can't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen

[kiya]

We're natural plural, not trauma plural.

[shandra.livejournal.com]

It is definitely possible. There are natural multiples, multiples who experienced some kind of trauma that isn't abuse, and then multiples who experienced abuse... the question of "what makes a multiple" is really in MY opinion a religious argument best left alone - created or evolved, we are here.

Many people who would diagnose you will disagree with that. But I really think that is their problem.

I think the important thing to remember, despite the fear, is that you will probably get farther listening to your experience and the experience of your mates if you don't take a particular stand on trauma. If no one remembers any, cool. If someone does, then deal with it as it comes up.

It doesn't make anyone damaged or superior, either way... it's just information. Don't feel pressured to provide a perfect answer for why you are, basically, you. That's just who you are.

Shandra

Re:

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"the question of "what makes a multiple" is really in MY opinion a religious argument best left alone - created or evolved, we are here."

Word. There's no way to prove any of the arguments; one must either take one or another of them on faith, or be content with "nobody knows".

Multiple without present-life early-childhood trauma here. I also don't consider my multiplicity to be any sort of "disorder". I love my 'brothers'; they love me and each other; none of us would wish to part. Umm, we WOULD prefer to have three bodies instead of one, but since we can't have that, we are fine the way we are.

[jenscovia.livejournal.com]

I really agree with what Shandra said here. It's WAY more important to deal with the present then to worry abut what happened to make you this way.

We were born multiple, and then experienced abuse. Abuse didn't make us this way, and once we dropped the 'I am an illness' mantra we grew by leaps and bounds.

jenscovia

Re:

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

... the question of "what makes a multiple" is really in MY opinion a religious argument
best left alone - created or evolved, we are here. <--- Y E S .