dissociation or actual people?

[itsa-wallaby.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering lately whether these other people in my head are actual people or if they're just me being dissociative, and how to figure it out. My therapist refuses to entertain the possibility that they're actual people, so no help there. Can anyone think of some way to find out..? Or is this one of those "only you can tell" sorts of things?

-Sean

EDIT: Look, the therapist comment was just to say that I'm not getting any help from him. He does NOT affect the fact that I don't know whether I'm just dissociating or if they're real people, and this question would have probably been asked with or without him. I have a lot of issues to deal with, and I am not seeing him for multiplicity, it only comes up because I told him about it once and he asks about it if we run out of other things to talk about. He's even told me that it's okay if I don't believe him. His stance is that they are dissociation, not people, and that there is a reason why they are there, and that I need to ask them until they give me an answer other than "well, why are *you* here?" I disagree with him about the question, but I do not know what to think about whether they're dissociation-induced or real people. Some days I believe they're real, some days not. Today, for example, I do believe they are real and separate people and that I'm not even the first one who was here. Two days ago, I believed we were all the same person and that I was dissociating sometimes, and sometimes "I" even thought that while talking to others or while being someone else.

I appreciate all your comments, I really do, just please leave my therapist out of it, because he has very little to do with this question.

Comments

[shandra.livejournal.com]

I've always looked at it as there's more harm to treating other people like figments of my imagination than there is to treating figments of my imagination as though they were people.

:-)

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Look at it this way. No matter WHAT is going on, your brain ultimately interprets your experiences and whatever sensory input or internal world or thoughts you might have. Some therapists are trained that "Normal = Only possible solution" and anything NOT normal or typical must be corrected. Some other types of therapists are more understanding and have a probably more modern philosophy of training that says "get people to be happy, functional, and productive" without worrying so much if whatever they experience is "normal" or not. So your goal should PROBABLY be "make your life, inside your head and out, happy, productive, and capable of functioning in whatever environment you need to."

The long and short of it is, what does it matter if whatever goes on in your head -- which is by definition subjective, since we can't really measure what someone is thinking in a meaningful way (ooh look your left frontal lobe lit up! something is going on!), does it really matter, as long as you can function?

[saavik.livejournal.com]

I am not a multiple, but human consciousness fascinates me in all its forms, so I do have a thought on this, FWIW: Chose the interpretation that you can work with best for all practical purposes. But don't paint yourself into a corner with absolutes just to humour your therapist because you may learn or discover something in the future that might require you to consider other alternatives. Keep your options open.

[kimandgary.livejournal.com]

My people are real. Many of the people here have real people. I don't know your people yet, so I can't say for sure, but in general, yes the people in the heads of mulitples are IMO seperate souls, though sometimes they are split souls... which doesn't have anything to do with being real or unreal.

The fact is that practitioners of psychology, are currently longing to be accepted as real "Doctors" and Scientists. Their Science is constantly changing, and very prone to trends and fads, and the current trend among many Psychitrists, is to make this all into a physically based science about brain chemestry, and mind altering drugs. Multiplicity... true multiplicity has nothing to do with any of that. It doesn't fit within that framework at all, so some of them want to dismiss us.

Fourty years ago, psychologists were both frightened and facinated by mulitplicity. They believed it was rare, seriously debilitating, and might lead to dangerous behavior. Now, fourty years later, thanks to various empowerment groups, we have proven this is certainly not the case. We have proven that multiplicity is fairly common, completely safe, and most of us function as well or better than most people... but they still insist we are disordered, because we don't fit the assumptions they made that the mind is completely a product of the physical brain. If we conceded that their was more than one person per brain, then we are infering that the mind is sesperate from the brain, which leads back to ideas about ghosts, and afterlife, and overall back into the court of spirituality, religion, and philosophy, and completely out of the realm of hard Science where they want to stay.

As multiples we have a choice of accepting their flat concrete model of the psyche, or we can trust our own perceptions. We can choose to believe that we are no more than a biological organism, which has but one life, and then dies and the mind with it, or we can choose to believe that some people can exist without bodies, and that they can migrate from one mind to the other, or... plug in your theory of choice as to how extra minds get into one body. No matter what theory you use to explain how they got there, in order to believe these are real and seperate people, we have to believe in something beyond traditional science in order to explain it. The mainstream of psychology doesn't want to go there, now since they have all these brain chemestry theories, and genetic theories to play with.

Even if it were not for that, there have always been skeptics who insist on keeping all their beliefs on a tangible physical basis. They roll their eyes, at the idea of God or souls, or psychic phenomonon. They wince when someone mentions any sort of mythology or superstition. It's just out of their comfort zone.

For whatever reason, your doctor has a right to believe what he believes, but he has no right to decide what you believe. It's a lot like religion. If your doctor was a hardcore Baptist, would he have the right to cram religion down your throat, and tell you that your problem was caused by the fact you had a beer, once in your life? NO! and no one would tolerate it, but he can be just as closed minded in his area of practice... just as a pastor would be within his rights to preach as he chooses from his pulpit... but it would still be up to you to believe what he said or not, or to decide whether or not you wanted to continue to attend his church.

Personally I wouldn't pay somone to tell me that Gary isn't real, when I know he is, but that's just me. IF he refused to entertain the possibility that what I experience everyday is true, then I would refuse to entertain him period, or his bill. LOL How much credence you put in your therapist's words, and how long you wish to pay him is up to you.

Kim

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily beleive that, in order for multiplicity to be completely valid, you really NEED any model other than the physical. You can still be different people, and function, and not need help, and be only the product of the physical--of one physical brain.

[kimandgary.livejournal.com]

Yes, you are right. I just never thought of it that way. Our situation is obviously supernatural, since Gary was a person I knew who died, and is with me... so I can't explain MY situation that way, but that doesn't mean other people have that situation.

[kimandgary.livejournal.com]

That's facinating! So you believe that your physical brain developed as two or more seperate people, not that your people migrated to you, or otherwise have a seperate origin? I know this sounds crazy but I never even thought of that as a possibility. LOL I know it isn't true in my case, but it could certainly be true in others. I mean if none of your people have memories of being elsewhere, other than together in your mind, and you don't have a gateway system, or knowledge of other worlds... Yet even so, your theory works equally well... and yes, you could, just as easily under the physical only model of reality, have more than one person living in your physical brain, and if you use the physical model... it still works that you could be seperate people, spontaneously generated within the brain. I am kind of blown away that the physical model of reality does work with multiples as well as the spiritual ideology.


I personally just don't think in terms of the physical only model... it seems strange to me. I can't really imagine it, any more than a true skeptic can imgaine my POV. I've had some strange awarenesses and perceptions all my life that convince me of the more spiritual realities. I was just born this way, and I noticed my multiplicity within the framework of psychic phenomonon. It actually started as a natural psychic link with another living person, whom I knew. It was that way all my life, with both of us springing up in each other's consciousness, and now that he's passed on, it's just one body, but it's still very similar. In my situation I don't think there is any way to explain OUR situation within the physical model but in yours YES!!! I suppose it is possible. I'm just not used to thinking that way, any more than the doctors I was talking about are comfortable thinking the way I do. LOL I guess I am guilty of making the same type of asumption in reverse. LOL It's very hard for me to think that way... It is like believing there is no sun on a hot summer day... it's very hard for me.

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

Ask them.

Johnny

[amonite.livejournal.com]

Asking usually is the best way, pass notes if you need to. (or, if you are co-conscious, letting them front and just observing their thoughts on the matter.) A real person will be self-aware, that is, aware of their own existence, vs. a figment of imagination that might be daydreamed up to talk to that cannot conceptualize its own existence. Communicating that awareness might be a bit difficult at first depending on your system set up, but if *they* can think or communicate 'I exist' than that is a primary indicator of reality - "I think, therefore I am".

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Doctors don't know everything. What do you think and feel about them? What do they think and feel about themselves?

[nefaz.livejournal.com]

i don't like your psychologist. ours says it's okay as long as we're okay with it.

on the topic of "autopilot vs. headmate", copied from our lj:

in the beginning, i was very unsure if it was really astraeus who was doing everything, and not the autopilot or me in a trance. then again... i can't do a lot of things while being in a trance. not even the autopilot can do all the things that happen while i'm "spaced out". the autopilot can't talk a lot and surely not post a topic in a forum. it doesn't come up and go away when i ask it to, and as soon as i start watching it consciously, it deactivates. but the most important indicator, which i, at first, totally forgot about, is astraeus himself. he tells me when he is in charge, he yells at me when i'm about to kick him out. the autopilot wouldn't do that. in fact, i once thought astraeus was operating but it was really the autopilot, and he told me it wasn't him. if i had made it all up, that wouldn't have happened, right?

hope that helps,
~ hoku

[saavik.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me that some multiples may in fact be the result dissociative disorders, while others may be separate people sharing a body.
There is nothing that says this phenomenon must be one or the other every where.
This is probably why it is so difficult for each person in a multiple to figure out which they are. On the other hand, only the person/people involved can tell whether they are separate individuals, or one person playing a game with their self.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I just don't see how dissociation can be an explanation for "others" with whom you can converse. The whole idea of dissociation is that there's some sort of a divide where you can't recognize that you are you which works with the black-out model of multiplicity. It doesn't work as an explanation when you're aware of each other's existence occurring at the same time.

That doesn't mean that your therapist can't be partly right and these "others" could be there for some psychological coping mechanism other than dissociation. Or he could be completely wrong and they're just there but still aren't true people in the way that you are. Humanity experiences a plethora of variations of having entities or voices in their head that are for the most part completely unstudied by psychology. In fact, psychology has only recently 'discovered' that hearing voices in the form of auditory hallucinations could be non-pathological.

I think that determining the nature of the "others" has to be a two-fold experience. First of all, you have to listen to yourself. For all that people do it all the time, you can never truly lie to yourself. It may take you a long time to admit it, but you will know if you are falsely attributing (or denying) autonomy or other abilities to these others. From there, people will usually let you know if they're people. You should be able to tell if you and them are equal. That doesn't mean that their beliefs or stories won't change because if they're at all autonomous, they'll have to learn to be honest to themselves, too, but you can learn where everybody stands in the group.

And if it turns out that you've been convincing yourself that the "others" are more separate than they really are, you know that's okay, right? It in no way invalidates whatever level of interaction or existence is normal for you or them. You're not in an either/or situation when it comes to subjective experiences of identity and thought; they're more of an or/or/or... situation.

[kindmemory.livejournal.com]

They are real, definitely. That was a question I had in the beginning, and my therapists said, they are real. That helped clear a lot up for me. We need them to help us with what's been going on (unless you believe you are from a non-trauma related system, but I'm def. trauma produced).

Also, they said everyone is probably like this but their others/headmates/alters don't seem to have any reason to differentiate or operate so seperately from us or each other. It's a different way of living normally.

[kimandgary.livejournal.com]

I was just thinking... If you wanted to test in order to really really find out... there are ways of substantiating your position that you are very different people.

If you got all your people to sign their names on different pieces of paper and got a handwriting expert to look at them all and determine if ANY of them could be written by the same person... well it wouldn't prove anything if they didn't look different, since it would be the same hand and the same body, and the same physical brain, but if they were different, I really think that would prove something. I've had the bank call me before, when Gary wrote a check. They said their computer picked up on the fact it wasn't my handwriting. I think that was a MAJOR piece of evidence for me. Other multiples have also mentioned getting calls from the bank about this issue. You could have this checked.

Another thing would be to allow your people to each type a short story, and then look at the differences in writing styles. You could possibly take it to someone who is good at recognizing writing styles, and they might be able to help determine just how different and individual your people are. You could do similar tests with drawing and painting, because all artists know how to spot each other's work, and recognize a piece of art as being by one artist or another. It would be easy to find out if the same person did a painting or not... if any of them paint at all that is. Get them each to do several pieces. Write some stuff... get it evealuated by experts in art and literature, and the hand writing expert. I'd do this on my own, and then when I had enough evidence I'd present it to the psychologist, with a portfolio from each persona who is able to front sufficiently to provide one. It might not only change his mind, but also give him grounds to write a paper, which would help all multiples to be understood better. Personally though if it were me, I would not tell him about it, unless the results proved that these ARE seperate people.

Kim

[itsa-wallaby.livejournal.com]

Those are really interesting and good ideas - although it'd be pretty difficult to have experts look at stuff unless you just happened to know some. Unfortunately, hardly anyone but myself fronts. I don't even usually hear from the others very often; sometimes a few times in one week, but other than that there's usually at least a couple weeks in between hearing from anybody.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

We've got Ian Wilson's book All in the Mind? where he says that handwriting and art analysis on multiples are not a good test. The analysis done on writing samples by Chris Costner-Sizemore and two of her other people concluded that even though the handwriting styles looked vastly different, they were all done by the same "person."

Also, a lot of times the differences between people, when they take the front, can be very subtle. There's covert switching and co-running and blending and so forth. It may not always be possible for people in a group, even when they are distinct individuals, and perceive themselves (and are perceived by others) to be, to produce anything different enough from one another to be recognized as actually separate bodies. I don't think any of us ever have.

[our-lady-pain.livejournal.com]

Thought we'd post something more "hands on" for internal selves recognition. Our MF thought she may be multiple about a year ago, but didn't want to jump to conclusions. So we journaled frequently, and did a lot of self reflection. It became pretty apparent that we were all here, and she wasn't just imagining it.

It took quite a bit of time for me though. I, Ed, do not front hardly ever, and so she wasn't able to "see" me usually. Sometimes it can be hard even for the MF and Le to be told apart, since MF rarely leaves the front. They are separate people, but both enjoy similar music and some fashion, so they may appear blendy easily. I like to think of them as sisters, since they would appear similar at first glance but if you confused one for the other they may smack you.

Give it some time and see where it goes. Some days we all have stuff to be doing and leave MF to the work out front, and some days we are here with noise and fanfare. Our MF sometimes thought the days we were busy she was just imagining us, since we weren't there to kick her in the pants and be noticed. Try a personal mood journal throughout the day. We tried it for a month, in the morning, at lunch, and before bed. Its amazing to see who thought what during the days. The journal also helped us find a nice pattern for who is out and when. Avatar makers also helped our MF have a specific image to associate with us. She says it makes us easier to recognize when she has a face to associate with a voice.

Also, we don't want to bully you on your therapist, especially if they are helping you with other issues. But keep in mind its never too early to re-educate your therapist. Try providing them with some of the online education materials linked around here. It may open their mind a bit and aide them if they encounter other multiples in the future.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Re the ETA on your therapist: Right, we understand. But also, the dissociation theory was initially made up by doctors to explain why people were multiple. So in that sense, in general, doctors don't know everything, but you already know this.

Also, there's a difference between dissociation and Jungian "splitting". If we're reading this right, his "splitting" is the idea that people create different personalities, not in response to trauma or abuse, but in response to different life situations. More than "I'm a different person at work than with my parents", but less than "George, Mary, Ruth, Sam and Harry are all unique individuals with their own personal identities, who happen to share this body." He talks about this in Memories, Dreams, and Reflections.

[saavik.livejournal.com]

This is interesting to me because I do understand about different personas in different situations, but even so, I know I am a singleton. I suspect multiples must know the truth of their multiplicity at some level in much the same way.
Just *where* the extra sentients originate is the big question. My instinct tells me that there are likely many sources.

[amanda7000.livejournal.com]

For the last decade, we've been debating this very question. The more you think about it, the more confusing it gets. Really: What is real? What is not real? Who's to say what is and what isn't? How do I know the rest of you out there on the Internet are real? Does it matter?

I would think that if someone is experiencing multiple selves, then there are multiple realities, the realities of all entities that share a physical body, that is, a body in this reality that has some kind of identification card, Passport or whatever that "proves" he/she exists in this reality.

Confused yet? I am!

I know I'm typing this, I know that at this moment I feel like I own the physical body I am using right now, but if I leave the house, the photo ID that I carry does not have my name or picture on it. I don't have a Social Security number. So, I guess I don't exist, right?

The more I think about this, the less I realize I really know. So - the challenge is coming to terms with - accepting - what is. You can ask questions, synthesize the myriad answers you've been given, come up with your own theory, and still never be able to prove it. And if that causes you grief, that's a problem.

What "feels" right to you? You can expect that your viewpoint may be challenged from time to time, by those inside and those outside, but if you feel comfortable with your theory for the most part - then you have overcome an important obstacle.

*stretches*

[bell-silver.livejournal.com]

Sorry for not replying here sooner, eh. It's taken me a while to consolidate my thoughts.

Primary. Primary is that the only way to know this is to give it time. In the meantime...try and not-force an answer. Trying to force an answer is 1) reflective of a state of suffering which doesn't have to be. And 2) won't help you get to the pure heart of what is happening. If there is one truth to the world, that means that falsehoods approach infinity in number. ('Course, that's if there's one truth. ;) I know a good number of people who would contest that.)

Secondary. Is that if you're experiencing the phenomenon, its origins aren't particularly important. Sure, it's interesting to try and parse an explanation. I know. :) I also know that it's very possible to cause yourself a lot of unnecessary pain via your explanations; which given the current state you appear to be in, may not be whole or entire explanations.

Your truth will come to you and in time you will see it appear and reappear. It will keep coming back even after being released. I don't know how to put this across to you...your question sounds young. That is to say that it's something that I've experienced in my own younger years and developed past. Or am developing past.

If you have to cling to an idea...this is a hint that it may not be completely true. There are many things we want to be true...with experience it is possible to essentially feel whether something seems true to you or not, and really that's the best indicator of any truth value or pragmatic value of a thought. Note they aren't the same thing.

Truth value refers to whether something in hard reality exists...

Pragmatic value refers to whether an idea helps you and those around you (and helping you function is helping those around you).

Both have value.

I would not argue the point that what you think really exists. Neurologically speaking, there is no question whatsoever that your brain is doing something so that it perceives multiple "you"s. If it did not, you would not have come to this point.

If I'm correct, you're trying to figure out if this perception -- of multiple yous -- is valid. Problem is that it is difficult to step outside of your own brain's perception into a "clear" brain, and account for errors which may be difficult to see from within the structure.

Plus I might turn the question around...is the perception of a single you, valid? Under what conditions? Are there conditions where it is not valid? Why is the perception that all must have a single self, collectively regarded (at least in the West) as more legitimate than the perception of having, or being, more than one? What do you have to lose if it turns out that you aren't more than one? Are these issues of belonging charging this question for you?

Do you agree with the precepts one must hold in order for "single you from single body" to be true? Are there actually any precepts, or is the idea that one must lean towards seeing themselves as one person, even in light of significant evidence to the contrary, just an assumption? If the assumption is baseless, why hold to it? (heh.) Are there ways to get around the social negatives associated with holding to a different model than the commonly accepted?

What I see with your dealings with other people -- using your psych just as an example -- is that you are finding that the vast majority of people do not have truly clear, clean, equanimous brains. That is to say that no one's mind is perfect. Our minds have been conditioned by all the years we have spent learning and growing, and it takes considerable effort to become aware of this, and more (much more) to counter it.

Of course it will be difficult to account for one's own possible psychic errors if everyone one speaks to, holds similar stances for similar reasons. It occurs to me that what needs to be done is akin to triangulation, only with more points needed. It does not help to speak to five different people to try and account for one's own errors, if on this issue, they all cluster around the same point. It especially does not help if the point they cluster around is itself in error.

And assumptions are very often in error.

Re: *stretches*

[itsa-wallaby.livejournal.com]

Thanks for all the comments and questions for me to answer. It reminded me of some stuff I'd forgotten (again). I'm posting my answers here anyways.

"Plus I might turn the question around...is the perception of a single you, valid? Under what conditions?"
Sometimes. Maybe most of the time. Probably most of the time. I'm the only one here most of the time, and at those times a single me is valid. Although that doesn't quite change that Sara from highschool and I are pretty separate.

"Are there conditions where it is not valid?"
Yes. Sean at the end of H.S. / after H.S. is different from Sara during H.S. And there were 4 of us, and eventually more, during part of college. Sara, Sean, Lena, and Jeffrey, and eventually others. That is how I lived my life for the better part of a year, and at various times during high school. Even now, sometimes I feel like I'm a different person, and I hear people in my head who are not me. Not very often, but sometimes.

"Why is the perception that all must have a single self, collectively regarded (at least in the West) as more legitimate than the perception of having, or being, more than one?"
I have no clue. I don't hold to that idea.

"What do you have to lose if it turns out that you aren't more than one?"
I'll feel like I'm not sane. Scott says I'm perfectly sane, I'm just experiencing dissociation, but I will still feel like I have been though minor insanity, that I've deluded myself repeatedly. Or at least I'm afraid I will. And I do mostly believe that there used to be more than just me in here, and if that goes a piece of my identity goes a bit, I guess. Maybe identity is the wrong word there, but something important to me leaves.

"Are these issues of belonging charging this question for you?"
Issues of belonging to what..?

"Do you agree with the precepts one must hold in order for 'single you from single body' to be true?"
I'm not quite sure what that means, but if it means do I believe that one body = one mind, then no, I don't believe it.

"Are there actually any precepts, or is the idea that one must lean towards seeing themselves as one person, even in light of significant evidence to the contrary, just an assumption?"
I think it's just an assumption people have.

"If the assumption is baseless, why hold to it?"
Erm, I don't..

"Are there ways to get around the social negatives associated with holding to a different model than the commonly accepted?"
Yes: don't tell anyone whom you're not pretty sure will be okay with it.

[islotta.livejournal.com]

How come you dont just ask them? If they dont like talking then you culd tell them you no they arent real. Thats what Islotta did. It made us really upset so we did talk to her then and told her yes so we are so real!!!!!!!!

Grover