![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootOkay, I actually consider a lot of these questions out of line or poorly phrased. But I took this prompt because we are trauma-initiated, and may be a little more familiar with some of the medical BS behind some of these.
Also, fair bit of profanity, in here, and not a huge amount of sympathy for the original questioner.
What is your opinion on the differences between MPD, DID & Multiplicity/Plurality?
...that the first two show up in the DSM and the last one doesn't.
Is multiplicity caused by physical or sexual abuse in childhood?
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Does multiplicity always stem from abuse?
Of course not, check in on any community or forum on multiplicity to see this answered unambiguously. (This is one I consider moderately offensive, since it implicitly calls the truthfulness or competence of many systems' own witness about themselves into question.)
If multiplicity is not caused by child abuse, why do Multiples or Plurals in the literature have backgrounds of child abuse?
(And again.) Okay, think about that for five seconds put together. "In the literature". The literature being what? That's right, the medical and therapeutic literature! And what is the medical profession most likely to see? People who have psychological problems! That's what shows up most in the literature because people who have suffered abuse, single and multiple alike, are likely to seek therapy. That's who the psychs see, and, as with many things, out of sight might as well not exist.
Why do scriptwriters do write Multiples as crazy?
Because that sells more. This is kind of a no-brainer.
Why do you say you are not disordered?
Because we're not? (Again with the offensive.) I, myself, am a very functional system, thank you very much. I have, online, met others who are equally so. We've also encountered some who are bugfuck crazy and having trouble telling up from down. Multiplicity itself seems rarely to be a disorder, really, but disorders show up just as much among multiples as among singletons.
What do you mean when you say you are not trauma-created?
Well, I am, so I don't say that. Rather, we are trauma initiated. Nothing in here was created from anything that wasn't already here.
If your group didn't come about by "splitting due to severe trauma", where did you come from?
*cockeyed look* Me. We're all me. This is not difficult. Some of us acquired considerable distinction due to different experience--whoever is surfaced experiences what's going on the most immediately and fully, and that influences people/parts. Not all systems do it that way, of course.
What is the most common stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
Gee, probably that we were all abused as kids. That or that we don't exist.
What is the most harmful stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
That we're all crazy. With a saver on the "all abused as kids", witness the first half of these questions.
What is the funniest stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
I don't find any stereotypes very funny, especially not when they're about me; have you considered becoming a little better socialized before interacting with other people?
What is the strangest stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
That it doesn't exist. Fuck you very much Paul McHugh, you and all your kind, you utter asshole, you condescending, life-destroying bastard.
Which stereotype(s), if any, applies/apply to your group?
I suppose the childhood abuse one, but I'll thank you not to make any assumptions based on that.
How can you claim to be multiple when you don't fit the proper medical criteria: being unaware of the others' existence, and blacking out when someone else is up front?
*dryly* Because I know a fuck of a lot more about me than a passel of doctors who have yet to get their heads out of their asses far enough to figure out a way to describe or assess the vast majority of actual lived experience on this issue.
Have you ever considered that these personalities ARE you, wanting to be absorbed into the total sum of your potential?
*disgusted look* This one is offensively evangelical. We ARE, thank you, the sum of my potential, and we do a better job of being so than a whole lot of singletons we've met. We're both functional and happy this way; count up the number of people you know who can actually say that.
At any rate, some elements subsume, some don't, some merely delimn. It's the process of living. Don't make assumptions about it.
Where is the line between disordered and non-disordered for multiples?
Where is the line between functional and non-functional? This is a meaningless question because the answer is, of necessity, so individual and circumstantial.
What is "healthy" Multiplicity?
Someone(s) who's reasonably happy living the way they are, just the same as for "healthy" anyone else. And watch who you're waving scare quotes at.
What does integration mean to all of you?
Eh. It's part of the process, nothing is static. But the scale on which it happens varies hugely from system to system. For us, well, we exist in order to live in this world we find ourselves; we vary according to the needs we find. Some elements find the need has passed and delimn all the way into Core (no, not a personality, oh never mind there aren't good words).
I have read of some people in the process of integration on multiplicity sites. One person who was plural, but is now "integrated", wondered why she was ever plural in the first place. She says it just went away like a phase. This has me wondering how it just went away, and what caused it. Is this typical?
There's no such thing as typical. There are broad trends, but that's about it, and the "literature" on multiplicity is so patchy and incomplete that you should not attempt to use it to identify trends. The person in question was, no doubt, accurately describing her own experience.
Do any of you believe you can spontaneously turn singlet, or fear it, and others just integrate or go away, like in a say spontaneous remission?
Again, watch who you're waving disease metaphors at; that's pretty damn offensive. We see nothing spontaneous about any of this; it's all cause and effect. Some elements can get upset by the idea of no longer being welcome or needed, but a little reassurance goes a long way.
There seems to be a split where many multiples have been formally diagnosed and are in treatment, and others self-diagnosed, and against Psych?
*dryly* Gee, you think it could be because the psych profession is so damn eager to say that we must be bad or wrong or non-functional or someone's imagination? YOU THINK?
Have any of you thought about going to a professional just to drop in say "Hey I'm plural and I'm okay"? Then give proof of job, school, family, and no abuse?
Fuck no. Do you have the slightest clue how hostile most psych professionals are to multiplicity? Your reading of "the literature" should have demonstrated that already. We have no interest at all in giving anyone the opportunity to slam or shame us.
Why would somebody allow an innocent to take the fall-out in a group for something they did not do, while another hides protected, or an innocent child were left to deal with it?
Come again? I think perhaps you've been reading about some pretty non-functional systems.
In the larger picture, though, answer me this: why would anyone at all ever blame their own wrongdoing on another person or harm an innocent child? But it happens a lot, doesn't it? When you can answer that question for singletons, you'll have answered it for multiples too.
JUST LIKE MOST OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS, ARE YOU GETTING THE HINT YET?
Are the children just out of place or lost their way?
Depends on the system. Some don't have children at all.
Would this be a group that does not function well?
If a system has anyone who's experiencing problems, that is usually a problem for the whole system. But that doesn't mean they can't function.
From what I've read, people who are plural are really serious victims to all kinds of trauma. It sounds like an awful life. Do you think they're just attention seeking?
Do not ever, ever ask that question around multiples again. Ever. Do you understand?
Actually, I don't give a damn whether you understand, just as long as those words never come out of your mouth or off your keyboard ever again.
If you believe that they are deceived or vulnerable then would you be willing to actively reach out and educate them? After all what they believe does kind of affect how you are perceived doesn't it?
Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. We are all responsible for ourselves. We are none of us responsible for the idiot assumptions that people make. We're not anyone's therapist.
If the theory of Plurality being passed along via genetics were real, then I would eventually show signs of being multiple too, as Multiples are in my bloodline I would be "fore-chosen" as would my siblings?
Genes are a lot more complicated than that. Just look at hair color. It's possible there's a genetic component to some forms of multiplicity, but I have yet to see any reputable studies at all done on this.
If the Illuminati theory is fake, as I thought for years, why do so many plurals truly believe this is why they're plural?
...the who now?
Also, fair bit of profanity, in here, and not a huge amount of sympathy for the original questioner.
What is your opinion on the differences between MPD, DID & Multiplicity/Plurality?
...that the first two show up in the DSM and the last one doesn't.
Is multiplicity caused by physical or sexual abuse in childhood?
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Does multiplicity always stem from abuse?
Of course not, check in on any community or forum on multiplicity to see this answered unambiguously. (This is one I consider moderately offensive, since it implicitly calls the truthfulness or competence of many systems' own witness about themselves into question.)
If multiplicity is not caused by child abuse, why do Multiples or Plurals in the literature have backgrounds of child abuse?
(And again.) Okay, think about that for five seconds put together. "In the literature". The literature being what? That's right, the medical and therapeutic literature! And what is the medical profession most likely to see? People who have psychological problems! That's what shows up most in the literature because people who have suffered abuse, single and multiple alike, are likely to seek therapy. That's who the psychs see, and, as with many things, out of sight might as well not exist.
Why do scriptwriters do write Multiples as crazy?
Because that sells more. This is kind of a no-brainer.
Why do you say you are not disordered?
Because we're not? (Again with the offensive.) I, myself, am a very functional system, thank you very much. I have, online, met others who are equally so. We've also encountered some who are bugfuck crazy and having trouble telling up from down. Multiplicity itself seems rarely to be a disorder, really, but disorders show up just as much among multiples as among singletons.
What do you mean when you say you are not trauma-created?
Well, I am, so I don't say that. Rather, we are trauma initiated. Nothing in here was created from anything that wasn't already here.
If your group didn't come about by "splitting due to severe trauma", where did you come from?
*cockeyed look* Me. We're all me. This is not difficult. Some of us acquired considerable distinction due to different experience--whoever is surfaced experiences what's going on the most immediately and fully, and that influences people/parts. Not all systems do it that way, of course.
What is the most common stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
Gee, probably that we were all abused as kids. That or that we don't exist.
What is the most harmful stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
That we're all crazy. With a saver on the "all abused as kids", witness the first half of these questions.
What is the funniest stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
I don't find any stereotypes very funny, especially not when they're about me; have you considered becoming a little better socialized before interacting with other people?
What is the strangest stereotype about multiples/multiplicity?
That it doesn't exist. Fuck you very much Paul McHugh, you and all your kind, you utter asshole, you condescending, life-destroying bastard.
Which stereotype(s), if any, applies/apply to your group?
I suppose the childhood abuse one, but I'll thank you not to make any assumptions based on that.
How can you claim to be multiple when you don't fit the proper medical criteria: being unaware of the others' existence, and blacking out when someone else is up front?
*dryly* Because I know a fuck of a lot more about me than a passel of doctors who have yet to get their heads out of their asses far enough to figure out a way to describe or assess the vast majority of actual lived experience on this issue.
Have you ever considered that these personalities ARE you, wanting to be absorbed into the total sum of your potential?
*disgusted look* This one is offensively evangelical. We ARE, thank you, the sum of my potential, and we do a better job of being so than a whole lot of singletons we've met. We're both functional and happy this way; count up the number of people you know who can actually say that.
At any rate, some elements subsume, some don't, some merely delimn. It's the process of living. Don't make assumptions about it.
Where is the line between disordered and non-disordered for multiples?
Where is the line between functional and non-functional? This is a meaningless question because the answer is, of necessity, so individual and circumstantial.
What is "healthy" Multiplicity?
Someone(s) who's reasonably happy living the way they are, just the same as for "healthy" anyone else. And watch who you're waving scare quotes at.
What does integration mean to all of you?
Eh. It's part of the process, nothing is static. But the scale on which it happens varies hugely from system to system. For us, well, we exist in order to live in this world we find ourselves; we vary according to the needs we find. Some elements find the need has passed and delimn all the way into Core (no, not a personality, oh never mind there aren't good words).
I have read of some people in the process of integration on multiplicity sites. One person who was plural, but is now "integrated", wondered why she was ever plural in the first place. She says it just went away like a phase. This has me wondering how it just went away, and what caused it. Is this typical?
There's no such thing as typical. There are broad trends, but that's about it, and the "literature" on multiplicity is so patchy and incomplete that you should not attempt to use it to identify trends. The person in question was, no doubt, accurately describing her own experience.
Do any of you believe you can spontaneously turn singlet, or fear it, and others just integrate or go away, like in a say spontaneous remission?
Again, watch who you're waving disease metaphors at; that's pretty damn offensive. We see nothing spontaneous about any of this; it's all cause and effect. Some elements can get upset by the idea of no longer being welcome or needed, but a little reassurance goes a long way.
There seems to be a split where many multiples have been formally diagnosed and are in treatment, and others self-diagnosed, and against Psych?
*dryly* Gee, you think it could be because the psych profession is so damn eager to say that we must be bad or wrong or non-functional or someone's imagination? YOU THINK?
Have any of you thought about going to a professional just to drop in say "Hey I'm plural and I'm okay"? Then give proof of job, school, family, and no abuse?
Fuck no. Do you have the slightest clue how hostile most psych professionals are to multiplicity? Your reading of "the literature" should have demonstrated that already. We have no interest at all in giving anyone the opportunity to slam or shame us.
Why would somebody allow an innocent to take the fall-out in a group for something they did not do, while another hides protected, or an innocent child were left to deal with it?
Come again? I think perhaps you've been reading about some pretty non-functional systems.
In the larger picture, though, answer me this: why would anyone at all ever blame their own wrongdoing on another person or harm an innocent child? But it happens a lot, doesn't it? When you can answer that question for singletons, you'll have answered it for multiples too.
JUST LIKE MOST OF YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS, ARE YOU GETTING THE HINT YET?
Are the children just out of place or lost their way?
Depends on the system. Some don't have children at all.
Would this be a group that does not function well?
If a system has anyone who's experiencing problems, that is usually a problem for the whole system. But that doesn't mean they can't function.
From what I've read, people who are plural are really serious victims to all kinds of trauma. It sounds like an awful life. Do you think they're just attention seeking?
Do not ever, ever ask that question around multiples again. Ever. Do you understand?
Actually, I don't give a damn whether you understand, just as long as those words never come out of your mouth or off your keyboard ever again.
If you believe that they are deceived or vulnerable then would you be willing to actively reach out and educate them? After all what they believe does kind of affect how you are perceived doesn't it?
Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. We are all responsible for ourselves. We are none of us responsible for the idiot assumptions that people make. We're not anyone's therapist.
If the theory of Plurality being passed along via genetics were real, then I would eventually show signs of being multiple too, as Multiples are in my bloodline I would be "fore-chosen" as would my siblings?
Genes are a lot more complicated than that. Just look at hair color. It's possible there's a genetic component to some forms of multiplicity, but I have yet to see any reputable studies at all done on this.
If the Illuminati theory is fake, as I thought for years, why do so many plurals truly believe this is why they're plural?
...the who now?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 01:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 01:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 01:34 am (UTC)At any rate, you're welcome.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 02:39 am (UTC)I admit, I'm curious what it's like to be multiple -- is there a routine of any kind (when it comes to daily tasks, etc.) would be the kind of curiosity I'd have -- but those are probably questions where the answers are completely different for everyone, like they are for singletons, and so not really related to being multiple at all so much as just general curiosity about people's different experiences. (I like hearing about people's experiences!)
I also might have asked "Are there any portrayals in fiction that don't make you want to throw things?". But in both these cases, not an obligation to answer, and I'm sorry in advance if my curiosity is a problem or bad. /o\
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 03:09 am (UTC)*rueful* I have to admit, I kind of stay away from fiction. All the best known ones are, naturally, examples of some really extreme systems.
Most multiple systems I know (including us) are very similar in day-to-day operation to anyone else. There's just... another layer? The question or awareness of who is surfaced (most people call this fronting, I just have slightly different vocab) and sometimes who needs to be or needs not to be.
I think of it this way: we're all me, and I know who me is. For us, it's not /all/ that different from the way anyone compartmentalizes for different roles or relationships; it's more distinct and usually more deliberate, and I think it fosters self-awareness in any functional system. I'm very functionality-oriented, so our "names" tend to be more like labels. Talking To Mom, and the Angel In The House, and Maintenance, and Long Term Planning, and Stone, and Nova, and Core Sexuality, and Goodness. It shifts, too. The Angel delimned a handful of years ago, because she'd done what we needed her to do, and she could stop--we were in a very different place by then. Stone and Nova are almost one element, now, because those parts of who we are are in better balance. But the elements that make up me have, in the past, been separate enough that experience and memory was not shared evenly among us.
Actually, one of my favorite "stories" is me and drugs. Because I used to have to take /way/ more drugs than are normal for my body weight for them to have any effect. Because most of us are really suspicious of any pharmaceuticals and it took more to "reach" everyone. It's one of those weird-ass physiological effects that's actually pretty common. We used to be able to float (as we call it) one element who just wouldn't be affected by alcohol, etc. and could, just as a /hypothetical/ example, take the boss' call without having giggle fits or sounding in any way stoned. I don't do that as much now, since we're in much closer communication and it's more work; usually not worth it. But wow did that play hob with taking anti-depressants.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 06:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-16 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 08:55 am (UTC)It made me think though... Sometimes I have a weird shift happening, usually when I'm really distressed and can't handle the situation anymore, and it's weird and feels strange, but yeah, like a shift, and then I am different. I feel different, and I'm calm and take care of things, and... but I am still aware of the distressed me. Hmm... I'll have to think more on this. Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 04:09 pm (UTC)This is one reason I kind of shrug at the DSM criteria. The mind and self are very fluid, and this is something a /lot/ of people do to some extent. It's just a sensible approach to dealing with the world, honestly. Some people, for a huge variety of reasons, experience something a lot more intense, but I think it's all part of the same spectrum in the end.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 04:25 pm (UTC)But your commentary is deeply illuminating, and I'm glad to have it even as I eyeroll at your having been put in a position to do the commentary. I know nothing about multiplicity, but now I feel at least marginally less ignorant.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-15 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-17 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-17 04:34 pm (UTC)What might be more useful is to read a little on "self-complexity". It's a theory first proposed by Patricia Linville. Personally I think she was a little too "this explains everthing" about it, but she did come up with some good metrics for how multiplicity (complexity) is a spectrum. Like any other behavior or coping mechanism, complexity only becomes a pathology when it interferes with a person's life and function. That's what a lot of otherwise intelligent psychologists seem to forget completely, when dealing with multiplicity. There isn't a hard and fast line that says "this person is singular and this person multiple", and there isn't a single way that multiplicity comes about, manifests, or should be dealt with.
And all the popular literature is, of course, about the most extreme and dramatic systems, which just re-inforces the foolishness, so I can't recommend that either.
The best website I know of is probably Pavilion.
Other than that, the best I can really recommend is to google with your skeptical hat on for /everything/ you read. Take the sum of the parts, which will be wildly disparate and contradictory. *wry* Kind of like a low-communication system, actually.