#theory of structural dissociation

[sysmedsaresexist]

An explanation of the Theory of Structural Dissociation

This post, originally, was attached to a syscourse argument. I realized that it might be nice to have a version that can be reblogged without any syscourse or ugliness behind it. This post has no DNI, it's meant to be educational, and if it helped you, maybe consider giving it a share.

The ToSD is a very scary, highly misunderstood monster to the system community. When you think you understand it-- Stop. Because you don't.

This post, though, might be an okay place to start learning about it. I hope it helps others understand some ToSD basics.

[Some ToSD facts to know before reading]

The ToSD

The ToSD was actually started in the late 1800s by Pierre Janet. Many, many other doctors have worked on and contributed to the theory over the last century. This was the competing theory against Freud's work, happening within years of each other. If Freud hadn't been such a dramatic pervert, Janet's work might be more well-known.

It is what it is, though.

If you've heard of the ToSD, though, you probably know it from The Haunted Self.

This (now) infamous book was written by three people. One of which lost his license for abusing his patient.

Many people think The Haunted Self is the ToSD. That this is the book that started it.

These two facts have been used in the recent past to discredit the theory.

Let's talk about it.

The Haunted Self came out at a time that allowed it to really gain traction based on technology. Being able to SEE it happening on brain scans was mind-blowing, and the proof for the theory continues to grow.

Opposition to the ToSD is based on atrogenic and sociocognitive models (fantasy, no plurality is real). It really is the best model we have and one that continues to consistently hold true. So... to explain the ToSD in very a semi-simple way...

The theory states that everyone is born with an unintegrated sense of self. Children have action systems, and these are the base building blocks of who we become. These are things like energy management, attachment, caretaking, survival (ex. hunger and thirst), and many more. From these, we build responses to our environment and people around us. When looked at from afar, or as a larger picture, these action systems can be said to, "exist for their own sake", which is where the confusion stems from.

For example, a child screams for food because he's hungry, and that action system has been activated. Once activated, it becomes the primary concern, but it is still the same child. This sense of hunger and how to deal with it is integrated into the sense of self (unless you're like me and a lot of your trauma is around food, and then a division occurs, and you refuse to care for that part of yourself or reject it entirely), and slowly begins to interact with other action systems, with no delay or divisions.

For example, you learn to balance your hunger and bathing needs, prioritizing and compromising needs/wants without issue.

Typically, as we get older and develop, we build on these base states and have easy access to them at all times. They interact in a healthy, cohesive way that makes you, you.

In structural dissociation, these parts become divided due to interruption, losing access to other action systems, and they begin to build within themselves.

The amount of integration before disruption (basically age) can help explain why there are levels and why some people develop PTSD vs OSDD vs BPD vs DID. For example trauma at age 4 will likely result in DID and a lot more amnesia because there was so little integration to begin with-- the walls are built higher, before any part had a chance to meet the others (this doesn't take into account predisposition to dissociate-- this is why some children in similar situations develop a CDD and some don't-- some people are not physically capable of dissociating like that).

Trauma at 9 could result in OSDD, as parts have already had a chance to start working together. Like, you met your neighbor before the fence was built. You still know them. This level of integration can't go TOO far backwards. Once the sense of self has come together without interruption, or once those formative years pass, you can't make those same changes to the brain. Someone who's 25 and becomes traumatized won't see the same level of damage to certain brain areas as someone with early life traumatization, and they won't have developed similar neural pathways that lead to the disordered behavior.

From action systems, we get into defense responses. In structural dissociation, these responses tend to fall on the EPs-- parts that are still stuck in trauma. Emotional reactions and triggers are so far divided that they can activate unchecked, and with volatility. A big misconception is that ANPs won't know about trauma, but that's not necessarily true. Dissociation as a mechanism, on all levels of structural dissociation, is meant to detach feelings from memories, so I remember a lot of trauma but have no emotional connection to that trauma. The "not me" part of dissociation. And this happens in PTSD and DID and everything in-between.

The difference is how much autonomy that part has. In DID, that part is so far separated that it's essentially its own person (l don't want to get into parts language or "less than" conversations in this post, this is just about developing autonomy). In PTSD, these parts are still connected, so the "main", or whatever word you want to use, still accepts that the experience is their own and can integrate it into their sense of self. For example, you learn not to go down those dark alleys, but know that the rest of the world is safe. You change a few habits, become a little more cautious, and maybe the memory fades, maybe it doesn't, but you're still you.

And this can be because of age (someone was already highly integrated) or because of duration (ongoing repeated traumas, with little sense of reprieve, end up with higher walls and more division-- one time use vs longtime use).

In this way, the longer the duration, the more parts are created, and you end up with multiple EPs and ANPS (secondary and tertiary SD). Keep in mind that there have been updates to the ToSD that show there are more than just the two types of parts, and that functions very often overlap.

And that's the basics.

[succulentcatsneeze]

Currently working on putting together a whole bunch of info regarding dissociation theory and phenomenology into a powerpoint because my family wants to learn about it, but I'm definitely gonna share it here once I've finished it!

[many-cdd-info]

SysCourse Myth: 「 The TOSD Is A “Trauma Ranking System” 」

☆ DiSCLAiMER ☆ [ please read before engaging ]

A common misconception about The Theory Of Structural Dissociation is that it’s a a sort of “rating scale”, where the trauma response is directly correlated to how bad the trauma was that created it. There are several problems with this approach, one is that trauma isn’t the event itself, but the stress that’s created to the event, the “reactive stress”, so-to-speak, and two, the formation of disorders is so much more complex than that.

✧ — 「 The Theory Of Structural Dissociation 」

The Theory Of Structural Dissociation, aka the leading theory of the formation of CDDs, in laymen’s terms, suggests that when people are born, they are born with “parts”. As a child get older, these “parts” integrate to form a “whole self”. However, if repeated trauma happens during the child’s development, these parts are unable to integrate and instead stay fragmented. These parts hold different parts of the child’s trauma (some are “logical memory” of the trauma, some are “emotional memory” of the trauma), but the trauma is hidden away (via dissociation) from the child so the child can continue to function. As more stress occurs in the child’s life, more parts are created to deal with that stress, as this is the only coping mechanism the brain knows. These parts are known as alters, and the collection of alters make a system.

Deeper reading: “Attachment Theory” (role discussed below) “Jungian Theory” “Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapy” “Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview Study on Personal Experiences of People with Multiple Selves”

The TOSD divides the spectrum of dissociative trauma disorders into three categories: primary structural dissociation (PTSD), secondary structural dissociation (C-PTSD, PDs, OSDD*), and tertiary structural dissociation (DID).

*UDD and P-DID can also go here.

Part of the reason people tend to misread the TOSD as a “ranking system” of trauma and the corresponding response is because PTSD is usually caused by a singular traumatic event while C-PTSD, Personality Disorders (PDs), and CDDs are caused by chronic trauma, often starting in childhood (which is where the dissociation comes from). However, just because PTSD usually causes by a singular traumatic event (sudden death, car accident, natural disaster, etc) that doesn’t mean that chronic trauma and the secondary and tertiary structural dissociative disorders are worse, or that DID means that system we r through worse chronic childhood trauma than a singlet with C-PTSD or PDs, or an OSDD system. This isn’t the Suffering Olympics, and having DID doesn’t get you a gold medal in Trauma Haver.

*as a side note- and this will get its own post -in the same way, a polyfrag/complex DID system isn’t “more traumatized” than a DID system, and a “HC-DID system”/“EC-DID system” isn’t “more traumatized” than a polyfrag/DID system. PTSD to “HC/EC-DID” are nothing more than labels that describe the structure of the dissociative disorder.

✦ — 「 What Determines A CDD If Not “Trauma Severity”? 」

Genetics and a pesky, nebulous thing known as “environmental factors”. While “environmental factors” means any and everything that may or may not have had an influence in a child’s development (physical, mental, emotional, sexual, etc) when it comes to trauma specifically, there’s something called “Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)” that can be measured to determine potentially traumatic events a child grew up with.

About Adverse Childhood Experiences

ACE Resource Packet (PDF)

Adverse Childhood Experience Questionnaire For Adults (PDF)

However, when it comes to CDDs specifically, it’s been found that maltreatment in childhood isn’t necessarily the determining factor of developing dissociation, but the availability and atunement between a mother and her child during the first year of life.

“The most significant departures from such caregiving experiences – those being individuals’ devastating experiences of maltreatment at the hands of caregivers in the early years – have long been understood to be the primary developmental precursor to dissociative outcomes (Bailey & Brand, 2017; Farina et al., 2019; Putnam, 1997; Schore, 2009). While maltreatment and dissociation are, without question, aetiologically and robustly linked (Vonderlin et al., 2018), individuals who display dissociative symptoms do not always report a history of such childhood trauma. Most notably, only a subset of trauma survivors ever develop dissociative symptoms (Briere, 2006). This apparent paradox has challenged researchers and clinicians’ understanding of dissociation as a developmental outcome, necessitating the consideration of a wider spectrum of caregiving experiences, beyond maltreatment, that may account for additional variance in such outcomes.

Several theorists and researchers have stressed the importance of considering the role of ‘quieter’ disturbances in the caregiver-child relationship in the development of dissociation-like responses (Barach, 1991; Liotti, 2006, 2009; Lyons-Ruth, 2002; Main & Hesse, 1990). For instance, Main and Hesse (1990) described an affective context in which the caregiver’s stance is aggressive (‘frightening’; e.g. loud growling voice, angry/hostile expressions during play) and/or expresses fear and helplessness (‘frightened’). They theorized that this creates an irreconcilable paradox for the infant, in which the parent is equally a source of comfort as they are a source of disorder and fear. Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, and Parsons (1999) further captured much of the essence of this parental stance in a construct they labelled ‘disturbed affective communication’. The term encapsulates behaviours such as withdrawal (e.g. interacting from a distance), affective errors (e.g. mixed cues such as sweet voice but negative message), role-confused responses (e.g. eliciting reassurance from the infant), disoriented responses (e.g. sudden changes in affect), and other important communication errors – all of which share the feature of the caregiver’s failure to organize the child’s affective experiences. One factor that commonly underpins these behaviours is the caregiver’s own unresolved traumas and dissociation, which can resurface in reaction to various traumatic reminders during interactions with the child (e.g. child distress) and interfere with affective engagement (Liotti, 2009; Putnam, 2016). Importantly, while these caregiving behaviours commonly co-occur with maltreatment, they can characterize a caregiver-child relationship in which there is no reportable abuse or neglect (Carlson, Yates, & Sroufe, 2009; Liotti, 2006, 2009; Lyons-Ruth, Dutra, Schuder, & Bianchi, 2006).

The potential impact of such disturbances on developmental outcomes can be understood in light of the caregiver’s role as an external regulator of the infant’s stress response (Bowlby, 1980; Schore, 2009; Schuder & Lyons-Ruth, 2004). As infants are not born with a mature capacity for regulation, caregiver inputs during infant distress, such as vocal tone, touch, eye-contact, and attention (Beebe et al., 2012) all play a crucial role in regulating the infant physiologically, allowing the child to internalize this capacity for self-regulation in later years. While the highly arousing threats of abuse and neglect represent the greatest and most obvious collapse in this developmental task, frightening-frightened behaviours and affective misattunement, when chronic and pervasive during the first year of life, can trigger stress dysregulation in the infant independently of maltreatment – hence their conceptualization as ‘hidden traumas’ (Schuder & Lyons-Ruth, 2004).

While at times presented as discordant (see Liotti, 2006, 2009), these theoretical perspectives may best be viewed in continuity rather than in contradiction. In congruence with an attachment trauma model proposed by Schuder and Lyons-Ruth (2004), this literature points to a dual developmental pathway to dissociation, with one pathway relating to the child’s autonomic defence systems, and the second anchoring at the intersubjective level of the attachment relationship. In the former, sources of attachment-related stress activate the child’s defensive responses, which could lead to a dissociative response in the context of severe and chronic disturbance (e.g. prolonged periods of infant distress without caregiver resolution; Perry et al., 1995; Schore, 2009), or otherwise predispose the child for dissociation in later years by altering the functioning of their stress systems (Schuder & Lyons-Ruth, 2004). Through the second pathway, attachment disruptions can further potentiate dissociative outcomes, shutting down the processing and integration of experience, should they leave the child without an organizing template from which they can learn to understand their internal and relational worlds (Carlson et al., 2009; Liotti, 2006, 2009; Lyons-Ruth, 2002; Lyons-Ruth et al., 2006; Van der Hart et al., 2006). Notwithstanding obvious parallels with the negative effects of maltreatment, as we exemplify below, this dual pathway is useful in helping capture sources of vulnerability in the caregiver-child relationship that are independent of – and additive to – the otherwise traumatizing experience of maltreatment. Importantly, the development of dissociation through these pathways is tied most saliently to the early formative years, during which the child’s capacity for stress regulation (Schore, 2009; Schuder & Lyons-Ruth, 2004), understanding of self-with-others (Bowlby, 1980; Liotti, 2006, 2009), and personality structure (Van der Hart et al., 2006) are in their most immature and vulnerable stages, and depend heavily on the availability of a caregiver for development. The importance of the early years (i.e. infancy) for dissociation can also be explained in light of the influence of caregiving experiences on limbic region development in the brain, as the coming sections will help to demonstrate.”

SOURCE: Developmental And Attachment-Based Perspectives On Dissociation: Beyond The Effects Of Maltreatment

While reading about this, keep in mind that we live in a society where not all mothers get “maternity leave” from work, or maybe they have to work two jobs to make financial ends meet. Maybe a mother is suffering from post-partum depression and is having a hard find after birth to provide emotionally for her child. Maybe she has other kids, and can’t give her infant the atunement that they need. None of these things are “severe child abuse” that SysMeds love to say is a staple in the development of CDDs, but they all very much play a factor- in fact it is THE determining factor as to whether or not that child will develop dissociation or not. Maltreatment is just the more extreme form of this lack of connection.

* There will be a post that elaborates on what “counts as trauma” in the future.

[fireflies-glowing]

Alright, I'm going to further reply to this in a reblog since I hate the format of commenting.

You are claiming that C-DID isn't real because DID is already a complex dissociative disorder/CDD. While yes, DID is a CDD, I believe that what you are claiming is feeding into a lack of nuance and potential false dichotomy. Since the 80s and the usage of MPD, modifiers such as "complex" and "polyfragmented" have been used to further specify certain systems/system structures that differ from other presentations of DID.

Although I acknowledge that he is highly controversial, it is important to acknowledge Richard Kluft as one of the pioneers of the "complex" specifier in the early 80s. Although it is highly outdated at this point, Kluft's paper on "extremely complex MPD" [link] is an important source when it comes to the history of DID terminology.

Due to the somewhat vague nature of the label "complex DID", many clinicians have moved away from the term for most purposes, and instead use the specifier "polyfragmented". However, C-DID is not a completely clinically retired term.

Here is a paper that uses both the terms "complex DID" and "polyfragmented". It's also generally a very good study and open-access.

Here is a behavioral health program that uses "polyfragmented", but describes it as "a complex sect of dissociative identity disorder".

Here is another clinic which uses "complex dissociative identity disorder".

While the term isn't as widely used in clinical settings, the specifically complex structure of some pwDID has been recognized since the use of MPD. C-DID tends to be used to refer more to the internal structure of certain systems, while the more broad term of CDD refers to disorders that fall under tertiary dissociation in the theory of structural dissociation (TOSD).

TL;DR: polyfragmended DID and complex DID mean the same thing, and they've both been used as terms in clinical settings.

(Also, I will not be making any statements on the term HC-DID.)

it's exhausting trying to argue with people who genuinely believe that RAMCOA and "variations of DID" like and HC-DID is real and don't want to accept the fact that they're feeding into a racist conspiracy theory and making it harder for actual systems to get diagnosed

[swordofazrael1992]

thinking about how bruce and jp/az manage to have the most insane father and son dynamic while also not considering each other father and son. like. just the number of parallels between the way jean paul (jr) sees jean paul(sr)/azrael and the way she sees bruce/batman is. mind blowing

and i did not mean for this to become a post about the secret third member of the system (HI @dustorange i did see your tags) (and before we go any further i am not a dissociative system but i am currently studying psychology in college and have done a lot of my own research) because i don’t feel like i have the best grasp of knightfall and want to reread it at least once b4 i analyze it BUT. we know that part of their programming is azrael being triggered into fronting when the visage of azrael is worn, i.e. when the mask of the armor is put on. and then we go to knightfall, and we see jp/az beginning to experience significant identity confusion/alteration, both between the two of them and between them and batman…a mantle given to them by a character who is a narrative parallel to the father that programmed them…who wears a mask……there are thoughts you can have here

this is not to say that jean paul and azrael are not responsible for the actions in knightfall because ooooh secret third guy did it not them so it’s fine right? nope! and this is where character analysis becomes difficult for me, because while jean paul and azrael (and azbats) are different, they arent always distinct due to the ways dissociative disorders function. that’s part of the identity confusion/alteration piece of complex dissociation (e.g. being blurry, being unsure of who you are, co-consciousness, passive influence, etc). not to mention system accountability—it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t jp or az who did it, it still happened, and they still have to deal with the ramifications of it. 

in addition, even if they were the only two alters pre-sword of azrael (1992), it is entirely likely that jean paul and azrael were experiencing enough distress to cause a split. their father died. jean paul discovered she had actually been under the control of a cult her entire life. two decades of programming were activated. they left the cult that had been controlling them the entire time and they no longer attended college (remember jean paul was at university at the beginning of soa 92). that is multiple traumas followed by huge changes to structure and routine, not to mention the episode of psychosis. splits occur due to stress, and splits also might reflect the trauma/distress at their source.

so when you take all of that with the fact that jean paul and azrael were suddenly without a father, without a mantle, without a cause, without a mask, and then look at azbats. 2 + 2 = 4

[sysmedsaresexist]

⚡️News Flash⚡️

ToSD and the ICD - 2023

Autopilot functionality and self-destructive behavior in patients with complex dissociative disorders-A qualitative study

"One important theory of [DDs] is the [ToSD]. It distinguishes between [EPs] that are linked to traumatic memories and [ANPs] functioning in daily life. The 11th revision of the [ICD] newly introduced the diagnosis of [P-DID], acknowledging this theory by including components of it into a clinical diagnostic system."

It's a really interesting article that looks at those with OSDD/DDNOS/P-DID. It also has this amazing quote about functionality and distress, which everyone should read.

Please give it a go, despite the length.

---

In relating to themselves, most participants reported a functional, conformist behavior that we named “autopilot functionality,” one key feature being an explicit outward orientation of the patients, meaning that they tended to focus on other people’s needs rather than their own.

I did not exist. My environment existed. (P9)

From the participants’ point of view, parents played an essential role in the development of this outward-oriented behavior. The participants described that from an early age, they had the impression that their wishes and needs were unimportant. Rather, they felt that they had to conform to the wishes of their caregivers. This led to feelings of guilt and a constant suppression of their own needs and feelings.

The way I grew up… it was rather that I have to take care of my parents and what I want doesn’t actually matter… the main thing is that my parents are well and everyone else is well because otherwise… so I just always had feelings of guilt. […] So the relationship with myself, it was always rather oriented towards the others. (P3(2))

In this context, the participants also reported that they had learned to have little compassion for themselves, so that it felt normal for them to continue to function even though they were feeling bad.

There I am not very sympathetic with myself. That comes from the time when I was a child and for example, I can remember it well, my grandma had died and the teacher then said that I don’t have to do my homework and then I somehow didn’t understand what the one thing had to do with the other. And I think somehow that my mother is also a bit like that, that you still have to do everything somehow, even if it makes you feel bad. (P6)

The outward orientation learned from the caregivers later spread into various areas of life and affected relationships with children, friends, and colleagues. For many participants, work was a field in which they were very functional but often ignored physical needs like hunger, thirst, sleep, or pain in order to (over)fulfill the requirements of their workplace.

You start [work] at 12:30 p.m. and then you have to eat before or after, because there’s no break for six hours of work and then I just comply with the shift. […] And then I was with colleagues who said: “How that, you don’t take breaks, come take a break with us now.” And I said: “I’m not entitled to a break.” (P6(2))

The participants felt enormous pressure to maintain a façade to the outside. This could mean performing well in school or at work, or taking special care of their appearance so that nobody would realize something was not okay.

I always knew that I am not allowed to neglect my body, I have to take care, I need to wash myself, I need to brush my teeth because it’s really dangerous if someone sees that you are not feeling well. That has always been clear to me. (P4)

This mechanism of maintaining a façade had disadvantages for the participants. Because they looked so “normal” and continued to function, it was difficult for those around them to understand that they were not well, which made the participants feel isolated and not understood.

The worse I felt, the more I worked, and almost no one outside understands that. (P1)

The constant focus on functioning for others was exhausting for the participants and made it hard to develop a sense of self. For one participant, it even felt like she had to find a new identity after therapy, because she realized that she had only functioned for others.

Interesting actually that one doesn’t notice that at all. That one is actually only functioning and functioning, but functions really well, because one lives and works for other people. That was a very, very sad insight for me that I said, now I have half of my life behind me and had to realize that now I am born again, and I will look for my new identity with my new personality […]. Because before that, I didn’t feel any pain, I didn’t have any boundaries, I was perfect in everything I did, of course. And now? (P9)

Participants described that one factor that helped them to function was their lack in perceiving feelings and bodily signals. For example, they had difficulties adequately perceiving hunger, thirst, and pain. Consequently, participants compared themselves to robots or machines that worked well but were unable to be in connection with themselves.

In the end, I didn’t feel at all whether the life I’m leading right now is actually what I want or whether I’m just doing it, just to do it, let alone that I felt anything. It was really only getting up, going to work, doing therapy, going home again, working, and somehow it was just like that. I think a robot captures it quite well, well programmed, but that’s just it. (P8(2))

As already described above, these difficulties with the perception of stimuli from within the body also made it difficult for the participants not to overburden themselves. They often only noticed that they had overstepped their boundaries through extreme physical signals (e.g., migraine and sleep disturbances). They also described overburdening as a strategy to distract themselves from complicated feelings and to avoid conflicts.

I was just astonished. Shit why do I have such a migraine now? Or why am I so exhausted and empty…? So, I always had the feeling that I had to do something, maybe to distract myself and I didn’t want anyone to feel offended or somehow get into a fight with me, so I preferred to do it and think to myself, okay, I have a fever of 40 °C, but I’ll do it anyway. (P7)

[system-of-a-feather]

Just gonna slide this here taken from "addressing racial trauma in behavioral health" course I'm taking for my work because this absolutely does not apply to the Theory of Structural Dissociation what so ever

[the-astrophel-system]

Hey, so this might just be brief, considering everything happening in our life right now. But I need something to focus on lol

DID Research has a few pages on the theory of structural dissociation, and you can find those here: https://did-research.org/origin/structural_dissociation/

Give that a look, I skimmed it because I dont have the brain energy but I know they have good stuff.

Here is another article I found. Again, I just skimmed this, but it seems to have some really helpful information. However, I think they use the word core. You can read that here: https://www.natajsawagner.com/blog/structural-dissociation-model

And finally, here is a tiktoker we really enjoy watching, going into detail about how the theory of structural dissociation works. You can view that here: https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSYRQpP7C/

We can make another post going into better detail of how we personally sort anps and eps, just dont have a lot of energy right now. And practically no communication.

Disclaimer: due to the fact we skimmed the articles, there may be information that we personally do not agree with. So please take these sources with the knowledge we aren’t in the right headspace. If needed, we can readdress this topic at a later date.

Disclaimer 2: All three links do talk about different traumas and potentially upsetting material, please be mindful and look after yourselves as you read/view.

- Blurry (they/them)

stereotypes abt systems r so funny to me bcuz.

host [me, hi] is not an anp, but instead a trauma holder of some of our most traumatic memories, with worsened symptoms of bpd and hpd. and i do actually do more than just sit around and front. because i have several roles actually. [sleep + social caretaker]

actually also, we have NO anps, the closest we have is a robot former host who is NOT normal because they STRAIGHT UP cant feel hunger or exhaustion due to us not having time to eat breakfast before going to school when it was hosting.

our main caretakers are not sweet, or soft, or cozy. one doesnt care for people and is actively intimidating to others without trying [and hes not interested in changing that idea], and the other is actively hostile towards people and is only interested in taking care of daily tasks

being social and friendly isnt a requirement but an optional thing, to the point we have social caretakers because so few of us are enjoyable to talk to or enjoy talking to people.

the Hosting situation [1 main host who is always fronting, 3 primary cohosts who are almost always in cofront, and 5 more cohosts who often get pulled to front. and we still have regular host changes every year or more.] instead of having no host, or a """""""""core""""""""" host

we have 10 introjects out of dozens of brainmade alters.

furthermore, we dont split the same fictional guy over and over! instead we have ~30 anger holders and 20+ protectors. b. because? i dont know. man too angry to associate

we DO have an evil alter and among being the only alter who we warn people abt interacting with, he has also eaten a mattress!

[fragmented-clown]

The Theory of Strucutral Dissociation (ttosd)

The theory of strucural dissociation is the current accepted theory with how Dissociative Identity Disorder forms in a person.

What is The Theory of Strucural Dissociation?

It works off of the assumption that no one is born with a multi-facted personality, and instead are born with a loose collection of ego states which each handle a seperate function to do with care, eg one for feeding, one for attachment to a caregiver, one for exploration, etc. Then, as a person grows up, all of these ego states combine into a multifaceted personality between the ages of 6 - 9.

Think of it like a net (unfolded box).

Each face of the box is a different ego state. They are still connected, but only by a small part, which allows them to communicate with each other. Then, as a person grows up, they then start to fold into a neat box, with this being completed between the ages of 6 - 9.

However, this process can get disrupted by a mixture of childhood trauma and a disorganized attachment to a caregiver. This causes dissociative barriers to go up between the faces of the folded box, making them no longer connected.

Then, when it comes time to get into a nice neat box, each face morphes into either its own box, or stays a face. The boxes are fully formed alters, whilst the faces are fragments.

Once the brain has learnt the coping mechanism of splitting parts with dissociative barriers, it can be done at any time, to any "box" or "face".

It is important to note that the ability to not intergrate is not only seen in children, however the severity which causes several distinct parts is only something which can be learnt as a child. People can have traumatic experiences which leads traumatic materials (memories, perceptions, learned reactions, etc), to not intergrate with the existing or forming personality, however does not create distinct personalities. This is considered primary and secondary dissociation, whilst DID comes under tertiary dissociation.

The difference between the levels is what parts are created, as detailed by the image below, as well as how much of a dissociative barrier there is. Someone with Primary Dissociation is not going to have alters, which those on the more severe end of Secondary Dissociation (OSDD1) and Tertiary Dissociation, will.

(image source)

Aparently Normal Parts (ANP) as parts which deal with daily life, whilst Emotional Parts (EP) are parts which either hold or represent traumatic experiences. Mixed ANP and EP, where a part is both an ANP and EP, is only present in DID. This is also associated with severe childhood trauma and generally happens when trauma started at a very young age or when trauma bleds over into daily life in a way where differentiation cannot happen or is unclear.

It is important to note that not every system will have clear roles as ANP, EP or Mixed Part, and for some this categorization system is unhelpful to them personally.

Disagreements with the theory:

There are people out there who disagree with the theory. The main three arguments for why it should not be used are;

One of the creators had their license revoked for abusing a client

It does not allow for endogenic systems to exist under the theory

There are things which fall outside of the theory which are common with OSDD and DID

My personal opinions on this are;

Whilst it is very terrible what Onno van der Hart did, and he deserved to have his license revoked for it, he can be a bad person and still have given good work. The world is not black and white. Secondly, van der Hart was not the only person to contribute to the theory, there were two other people who contributed to it, who to my knowledge are still active practioners and researchers who are in good standing

The theory currently only is for OSDD and DID, it was not written in mind for endogenic systems, as endogenic systems do not have OSDD or DID. Whilst there 100% needs to be more research into endogenic systems, it is okay for theory to exist purely for OSDD and DID, as even through anecdotes, they operate differently to endogenic systems

Yes, there are experiences which do not fit into the current theory. However, the whole theory should not be discounted because of it. The reason it is called The Theory of Structural Dissociation, is because it is still a theory. It is to date, the best understanding we have of OSDD and DID. There is obviously room to improve in regards to our understanding, however to do so, there had to be groundwork laid out.

[many-cdd-info]

SysCourse Myth: 「 Schizogenic Plurality 」

☆ DiSCLAiMER ☆ [ please read before engaging ]

Schizo-spectrum disorders: schizotaxic spectrum (SzPD, StPD, AvPD, PPD), schizophreniform, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders (depressive & bipolar subtype)

Schizo-spec disorders have a complex history within SysCourse. Endos get frequently called delusional/schizo when they say they're plural without trauma, however, if a collective says they're schizogenic or that their systemhood is otherwise informed or influenced by their schizo-spec disorder, they get fakeclaimed. While there's no black-and-white, hard evidence that says pwschizo-spec disorders can be a system because of their schizo-spec disorder, we're here to suggest evidence that says it is in fact possible.

While there have been plenty of schizo-spec and psychotic PMSC& that have talked about their hallucinations giving them a plural expereince, this post will actually be taking a different approach and discussing The Theory Of Ipseity Disturbance, and comparing it to the precious anti-endo bible, The Theory Of Structural Dissociation.

✧ — 「 PTSD, C-PTSD, PDs, and CDDs Are Disorders Of The Narrative Self. (This will be called Structural Dissociation Disorders) 」

“Narrative identity is the internalized and evolving story of the self that a person constructs to make sense and meaning out of his or her life. The story is a selective reconstruction of the autobiographical past and a narrative anticipation of the imagined future that serves to explain, for the self and others, how the person came to be and where his or her life may be going.”

「 Narrative Identity by Dan P. McAdams 」

To put this into layman's terms, the Narrative Self is the part of the Self that “knows the story” of the self. People have their own autobiographical knowledge and memories of themself, and there is a sort of narration to each individual. The problem with the Structural Dissociation Disorders is that it prevents this “narration” from being a single, cohesive unit. In SDDs, this narration is interrupted by trauma, where the traumatic memory and the emotions stored in it are separated. A pwSDD may be able to recall a traumatic memory and do so in a very detached way (ANP), while flashbacks hold the emotions of the memory (EP). The two aspects of the memory have been fragmented or separated. They are not integrated. 

「 Is Trauma Memory Special? Trauma Narrative Fragmentation in PTSD: Effects of Treatment and Response by Michele Bedard-Gilligan, Lori A. Zoellner, and Norah C. Feeny 」

「 Understanding and Treating Unwanted Trauma Memories in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder by Anke Ehlers 」

As a side note, this is why “meaning making” is the final step in trauma therapy for pwPTSD. A pwPTSD can reintegrate the traumatic memory and assign personal meaning to it that goes beyond meaningless abuse/violence/trauma.

「 Narrative Exposure Therapy (NET) by N/A 」

「 Meaning Making Following Trauma by Crystal L. Park 」

Structural Dissociation Disorders (PTSD, C-PTSD, PDs*, and CDDs) are disorders of the narrative self because traumatic memories are stored in the brain in a different way than normal memories, which results in an ANP(s) and EP(s). This disrupts the autobiographical nature of the Narrative Self because the narration has been split into parts: the actual memory and the emotions attached to the memory. PTSD can actually recover through memory making, which works to reintegrate the traumatic memory back into the overall narrative of one’s self.

* PDs are a disorder of the narrative self due to splitting, and info on that can be found here: 「 Key Concept - Splitting by Dr. Craig Childress (2014) 」 you can also research attachment theory and disordered attachment to understand what the splitting process/basis of PDs is and why it forms.

✦ — 「 Ipseity Disturbance Is The Disorder Of The Minimal Self 」

Ipseity disturbance is a theory for schizo-spec disorders to explain what the root cause of schizo-spec disorders are. For those who don’t know, schizophrenia isn’t really a singular disorder, but rather the grouping of several disorders that can actually all exist on their own (delusional disorder, hallucinations, PPD, catatonia, and disorganized symptoms which are an umbrella of various cognitive and intellectual disabilities). Ipseity is the theory that pwSzSD (Schizo-Spec Disorders) lack or have a weak minimal self, and that’s why these grouping of other disorders A.) manifest and B.) have the profound effect that they do on pwSzSD.

The minimal self is basically the foundation for a person’s sense of self, it is what, on a very subconscious level, allows your brain to determine what is “you” and what isn’t “you”, it draws a line between the Outside and the Inside. The minimal self is what allows you to know that you take up space, that your consciousness inhabits a body, that you are in a specific, fixed point. You are separate from the chair, from the walls, from the people in the crowd. It is this very innermost, basic, fundamental, subconscious sense of self. People on the schizo spectrum lack this barrier between “me” and “not me”.

「 Self-disturbance and schizophrenia: structure, specificity, pathogenesis (Current issues, New directions) by Louis A Sass 」

「 Disturbance of Minimal Self (Ipseity) in Schizophrenia: Clarification and Current Status by Barnaby Nelson, Josef Parnas, and Louis A. Sass 」

��� Varieties of Self Disorder: A Bio-Pheno-Social Model of Schizophrenia by Louis Sass, Juan P Borda, Luis Madeira, Elizabeth Pienkos, and Barnaby Nelson 」

「 Towards a Neurophenomenological Understanding of Self-Disorder in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Anatomical, Physiological, and Neurocognitive Findings by: James C. Martin, Scott R. Clark, and K. Oliver Schubert 」

✧ — 「 Because minimal self is a deeper layer of self than the narrative self, there’s no way to have a self disorder, but have a cohesive, healthy, non-fragmented narrative self 」

「 The fragmented self: imbalance between intrinsic and extrinsic self-networks in psychotic disorders by Dr Sjoerd J H Ebisch, PhD and André Aleman, PhD 」

「 Between Minimal Self and Narrative Self: A Husserlian Analysis of Person by Jaakko Belt 」

「 Reflections on Inner and Outer Silence and Consciousness Without Contents According to the Sphere Model of Consciousness by Patrizio Paoletti and Tal Dotan Ben-Soussan 」 ⬇️

As you can see in the diagram, the narrative self is built off the minimal self. Think of the minimal self as the foundation to a house, and the narrative self as the frame. Structural Dissociation Disorders have a solid minimal self/foundation, but the frame of their house is fragmented, broken and unstable. With ipseity in schizo-spectrum disorders, the minimal self is disordered, so the foundation is fragmented and broken. You can’t really build a solid, sturdy and reliable framework for a house on a broken and fragmented foundation. In a similar sense, Structural Dissociation Disorders have a disorder in the narrative self because their autobiographical narration is fragmented (traumatic memory + ANP and EP); in ipseity, or minimal self disorder, you can’t have an autobiographical narrative when you don’t feel like the narration is happening to you. (And memory problems and other cognitive dysfunctions are already known negative and disorganized symptoms of schizo-spec disorders).

Is there an article out there in plain black-and-white text that explicitly states, “schizo-spec disorders can cause plurality”? No, sorry, but you’re going to have to do the research on narrative self disorders/structural dissociation and minimal self disorders/ipseity and rub your two little brain cells together. And, to be quite honest, there may never be a paper like that, at least not in the near future, because there’s so much more going on in the research realm of schizo-spec disorders (such as ipseity, the root cause of schizo-spec disorders, how to treat disorganized and negative symptoms of schizo-spec disorders, the neurophysiology of schizo-spec disorders, etc). And, just because ipseity can cause plurality doesn’t mean it’s going to look and act and behave the same as structural dissociation (duh, they're two different disorders, although it is worth noting that pwSSD are more likely to be abused, and already having ipseity could mean we’re more likely to become a system since we go into the trauma without a solid minimal self foundation. It could mean we’re more likely to become a system, have a lower threshold for what counts as trauma, and perhaps there’s no age cut-off, since we never had a cohesive, integrated self to begin with. However, with non-schizo systems having a minimal self, opposed to schizo-spectrum systems not having a minimal self, the internal structures of a schizo and non-schizo system may be drastically different, but that’s a different conversation. Of course, this is just speculation on our behalf, but it is a conclusion drawn upon by medical research.)

[system-of-a-feather]

Adding on since I was tagged, but I mostly followed a similar situation with @snowglobe-system but I talked about some of the things that were involved into being reasons I shifted from anti-endo to pro-endo as well here but since that's a slightly old post (at least relative to the amount of healing and thinking about the topic) I'll still give a "short" (Feathers definition of "short") run down of present observations and aspects of the change of stance in my experience.

For me, a lot of being an anti-endo came from a place of having a false understanding of what psychological research is, misunderstandings of the strength of validity of the ToSD (and also the comfort that feeling as though something was FACTUALLY known about my condition gave me as opposed to the uncomfortable truth that most things about the human condition, clinical or not, is largely unknown and speculative), a clinging to the sense of superiority and ego boost of "non-cringiness" of not being endo, a trauma centered clinging to the past bad experiences I've had with endos reinforced by some negative experiences that I saw going on, a generalized echo chamber within anti-endo social groups, and just an honest to god lack of interest or care to actually hear out experiences from the other side.

Honestly a large consistent feeling I had on the "anti-endo" side was a large amount of frustration from endos which was partially because 1) I would see them trying to derail topics about trauma that I was trying to work on into syscourse debate and it made me annoyed and 2) a lot of inappropriately projected frustration and pain that I was experiencing in early recovery towards endos under the idea that "they made this look fun and fetishized / romanticized" the disorder without really, you know, having anything other than the CONCEPT of an endo (and a certain toxic tulpa blog, same blog was one of the largest reinforcers to my anti-endo thinking tbh) in mind. Relating to the point on "lack of interest" I don't take that as a "I didn't care to consider the implications of my beliefs" but more so that I literally didn't have the mental space or energy to really consider as I spent most of my days just trying to survive and the concept of non-traumagenic plurality was something I literally could not care about with how bad my symptoms and day to day life was. I think its important for people to be able to acknowledge when they have an opinion because they can't currently "afford" or dedicate time to contemplating otherwise because that is 100% okay and fine! But it can become a bit dangerous / reinforcing to a toxic mindset and prevent the eventual growth if that is one of the largest reasons behind the shunning of a group but you instead claim it to be another reason as it might prevent you from actually re-evaluating your beliefs when you DO gain the ability.

Largely for me, changing stances was something that came pretty naturally the more I recovered and the less the symptoms burdened me. With less day to day stress I had less to project, I had more time and space to consider things beyond basic survival, the more care and compassion I had for others, the more trust and benefit of the doubt I could offer to others, and the more I learned that I could let personal grievances and conflicts aside for mutual peace and benefit.

Along with that, I got a lot more insight and engagement with my eastern culture, my family's history and inter-generational trauma with colonization and how colonization appears systemically in Modern Western Society, delved deeper into Buddhist and Buddhist philosophy, got trained in culturally and trauma-informed mental health care, and just really lost my trauma-driven addiction to conflicts and "winning" and gained a lot more of an appreciation for the ability to non-judgementally discuss experiences with one another.

Overall, I'm pro-endo solely in the sense I would rather open up discussion and talk about experiences in a non-clinical manner rather than force every experience into the Western Clinical Perspective when not everything that appears atypical in western society / culture is inherently something that has to be pathologized.

Some Posts Relating to this Topic: Some Nuance in Colonialism in Western Societal Systems Discussion on the Theory of Structural Dissociation's Assumptions + lack of cultural sensistivty / responsiveness of people when discussing it A Large Breakdown of Tulpacourse Components of Discussion; parts involve talking about non-western perspectives of self if you'd like to skip past the tulpacourse centered talk Discussion / Explanation and Original Discussion of What I Call the "Standardized Singular Self" that is Pushed and Its Role in Racism / Colonialism (also relating to tulpacourse, but syscourse in general)

I do believe that the clinical label of "DID" is a trauma disorder, but even then I do believe that the DSM-V and ICD do mental health a large disservice placing mental conditions into categorical boxes rather than dimensional measures, particularly since most research suggests that most mental health conditions lie on a spectrum of symptoms rather than clear and concrete differences. Therefore, I believe the debate of "does DID have to have trauma" is a bit of a circular, uninteresting, and non-practical discussion as the very concept of DID - as I would say with most disorders - is not the more concrete. (Doubly so since trauma is actually not in the diagnostic criteria for DID so there is room for clinician interpretation and for an individual who does not have the standard trauma in the standard developmental time frame to be diagnosed with it)

I think a more interesting discussion - even on the clinical end - is "Can an individual without trauma and/or trauma outside of the typical developmental window for CDDs develop dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue, and alternate identity states and if so, what conditions may influence it and how may these symptoms / experiences present differently than the typical presentation of CDDs within the developmental window?" because..

It defines "DID" and "CDD" in a more dimensional and quantitative measure than the categorical and qualitative measures that the DSM diagnosis provides and allows for much more nuanced and precise research / data to be collected

It defines what I am interested in researching more clearly than "DID" or "CDD"

It does not assume that something people report to exist does not; Science should accommodate practical evidence of something contrary existing and explore why the contrary information does not apply to the theory at hand OR adjust to include and account for the contrary evidence

Some Sources and Readings Related: The DSM-V actually already acknowledges that dimensional approaches are more appropriate and some of the changes from DSM-IV reflect this; a large reason for the maintence of the categorical approach to describing mental illness is that it conclics with the medical model / insurance model and risks complicating clinical practices (x) Dimensional vs Categorical Readings, neutral and/or from both sides (x) (x) (x)

Also @indigochromatic cause I think you'd like this discussion + they're also a great blog to look at. @hiiragi7 also might be worth looking into too.

Hi! Feel no pressure to answer, but I have a few questions (regarding DID)

So I'm aware of what an endo system is, but I'm a bit confused on why it would be considered valid since the condition is directly caused by trauma, which is the thing that endos lack. Could you please explain your perspective on it? And maybe your perspective before you became pro-endo?

Hey! I've been sitting on this ask for a few days now. I do want to start out by thanking you for reaching out to me and asking about my perspective. Please note that you are not obligated to agree with me, or to change your mind just from my answer to your questions. I like having you as a mutual, and I will continue to do so regardless of your syscourse stance.

I'm going to grab a term that some of my mutuals in the DID community have used, and say I'm really more pro syscourse conversation than I am pro endo- pro endo is just the easiest way to communicate my basic stances.

I think the most important thing to understand here is that a lot of the time, the "are endos real" debate suffers from both sides fundamentally misunderstanding what the other's stance actually is. While there is a small subsection of the endo community claiming that DID isn't trauma based- which I vehemently disagree with, DID is absolutely trauma based, and that's backed by all of the research- that's not the majority.

Most endogenic systems are not claiming to have DID. They are claiming to experience themselves as more than one. I am by no means an expert on this, but I know that it is a very western-centric view to assume that everyone subscribes to being one singular self. If you want to learn more about non-western views on the self and on plurality, I would recommend looking at @system-of-a-feather's blog. They make great posts on the subject!

And- here's a real kicker- not everyone with a CDD- CDD standing for complex dissociative disorders and including the likes of DID, OSDD, P-DID, UDD, etc- actually identifies as plural. Not everyone with even DID identifies as plural. So if someone with a CDD can identify as one, what's stopping someone who doesn't have a CDD from identifying as more than one? This post puts it pretty well, so I'm just going to link it here! And if you're looking for scientific backing on endo systems? Dr Colin Ross, one of the very well known DID researchers, believes in non-traumagenic self states.

Basically, I'm choosing to believe people when they talk about their subjective personal experiences.

Now you did also ask about my anti-endo days and I will also gladly talk about those. I will admit, I was the worst kind of anti-endo. I was the type of person who would throw even other CDD systems under the bus as fakers because I wanted to seem more legitimate. Everyone who didn't present the "right" way was a faker. And endos, my goodness. They were the worst fakers of them all.

It was an extremely reactive position to take. I was suffering from my plurality, therefore everyone who wasn't had to be faking. They were making a mockery out of me! At least, that's how I perceived it.

And then I started interacting with endos, and pro endos. I realized that they were also real people, not just an abstract concept to make fun of to make myself look more legitimate. And I started reading blogs that had the rawest, realest content about CDDs that I'd come across thus far... and they were pro endo. And the arguments as to why were really good.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that the things that were leading me to being anti endo were the same things that made me into a transmed when in the 2010s. I believed that people had to meet a minimum quota of suffering to be real. In a way, I was defining people by it. And ultimately, if they are lying? It costs me nothing to believe them. I'd rather believe some liars than not believe people who are telling the truth. I've had enough experience with people not believing me. It sucks. I didn't want to keep doing that to others.

That's about the end of this yap session! Seriously, thanks again for asking, I really enjoyed writing this post. I hope I answered in a way that makes sense to you!

[five-thousand-loaves-of-bread]

will not talk about MPD DID history will not talk abt will not talk about WILL NOT THINK ABT (chant in hope will actually follow)

it extremely upsetting ppl don’t know this history ppl w OSDDID n systems n whatever word feel comfy with not know this history n its not just history it still continue TO THIS DAY

last post LAST POST

[remitro]

gonna be so real guys one of my ocs is NOT beating the fucking system allegations right now. good lord

[aidsyouinthinking]

Spilled Poem: I know your ligaments more than my own.

I know your ligaments,

How to bend, pull- and draw that necture.

I adore the knowledge as much as applying it,

But most, the way you contort and twist,

Now that I find most appealing.

It's hard though.

My compulsions my desire to prod and poke,

Often, it's met with discontentment:

Dissociated emotions sharply seethe and seize,

Leaving muddy ill-equipped me markdly deer like.

Better with a brat,

Explict rabid unbridled teasing,

Like a game of poker with all cards shown,

Doubt is shunned- and forced in its place?

Beguiling stage craft and porcelain face...

I never dream of sex.

Like a breeze flutters by so does a fleeting feeling,

Of company of person; not body, but mind,

I dream of groggy cuddles or tender touch:

It must be backed by what I'd be pressed to believe.

Forever will I roam?

I test I try and once done perhaps I'll neuter myself?

Perhaps those emotions are calling for old habits,

And when I exorcise them I will be fully ace..?

I might never know who of me desires?

I do not think I desire to know...

Though I wish it to exist; To hold my guilt,

For where else will my guilt go?

Far down below, where a new me is built.

[thestarseersystem]

I have something for endos.

thank you.

[in-sightpublishing]

Conversation with Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Identity, Culture, and Self-Mapping

Scott Douglas Jacobsen In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com) Received: April 6, 2025 Accepted: N/A Published: June 15, 2025  Abstract This article presents a wide-ranging interview with Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, a Canadian counselling psychologist, educator, and theorist known for developing the…