stonecourse - Tumblr blog

[stonecourse]

System and neurodivergent communities: we are on the internet where every person is represented by a string of text and a random image. I care about this thing that concerns me

neurotypical people: you don't conform. I don't like your random image. I don't like the way you think. Nobody should care about what you're caring about. Therefore, you're not sincere.

System and neurodivergent communities: this must be a misunderstanding, what if we use tonetags to express our sincerity?

neurotypical people: what if you're lying. I don't care about what you care about therefore you're not a real person. I also decided this because I don't like the shape of your paragraphs or the color of your string of text. Now go away and stop being so visible.

This person: this is great actually

I am so tired of law-abiding fools.

They claim that you can't tell someone's being a smartass based on vibes alone, they might actually be trying to make a real argument! They might really be telling the truth, and without concrete proof you can't say otherwise!

Burden of proof is on the guy wearing the smirk, I'm not sorry

Let me explain. Someone in here recently disavowed the concept of bad-faith arguments, specifically the thought that you might be able to tell whether they're making one without knowing them and being inside their head.

Throwback to several years ago, when I ran up against someone telling me they don't think my disorder is real. I'm like. I'm not dealing with this. They want to paint me as crazy so that nobody takes my criticism seriously, everybody will eat it up because the change I want is inconvenient, and the staff will obviously be like :thumbsup: all the while being like. "You just got mad, deal with it B)" (this was about an IEP in school btw, in case you're curious.)

Bad-faith arguments have an unscholarly purpose. To make you just give up because arguing with them is exhausting. And it works because people take them seriously, bro. People take mister "I dont trust the medicine people" seriously. IDK what the anon was specifically talking about, but the concept of bad-faith arguments should be taken seriously. It's a valid observation to make of somebody else's argument, and they can make counter points to your observation if they want. If the guy was like, I dunno anything about it! Once I pointed out the bad-faithness, I could educate him and he could learn. But that isn't what happened. It's just emotional denial with zero curiosity. "No!! Now listen to me instead of ignoring me!!" they say. And then you listen, and that's when they win. (in this instance I just got accomodations for symptoms of general ptsd, which wasn't enough so I dropped out)

When people with shitty ideas pretend to be good-willed, we feel obligated to give them a platform as a free-thinking, curious, trusting society. Daily IRL life (offline) depends on trusting people to be decent. When people with shitty ideas present themselves as Just Asking Questions And Being Curious Except When You Try To Educate Me I Yell At You, the audience (at BEST) reacts with "oh well I guess since this person who Knows about this is arguing with him, I guess he's worth arguing with! I guess this topic is still up for debate!" And you can SEE the issue with that.

Support people who just don't take obvious shit. Support people who call out some Bullshit, pls. Pretending you have to treat everyone as equally unmalicious is dangerous, and that's coming from a trans guy who was accused of mail tampering at age 11. Be less trusting of OBVIOUS bs, and if someone's like "this is an obvious bad-faith argument" don't go "you don't know that! what if they're well-meaning? You can't see in their head!" it's literally All these types of people want. I don't care what it's about. This happens with every single issue. Hotdogs a sandwich. This is pedantics. We're talking about food safety cause your restaurant is breaking the food safety guidelines, we aren't going to discuss whether a hotdog counts as a sandwich. That type of shit. It's everywhere. "I want a lwayer, dog" "Oh but he might've meant he wanted a dog who was a lawyer! I didn't know he was calling Me dog!" you know. Hope this isn't too harsh, I don't hold any bad feelings towards this one anon, I just really hate seeing actual angels in my life fall into the trap of trusting professional bullshitters :/ Replies encouraged, because obviously since this is a reply to someone I'd be an ass to not welcome a response LOL

📬- Syscourse replies encouraged

[stonecourse]

...me when I forget my own intro post, I guess.

Thinking about making this into a more general discourse blog, especially since summer vacation is over and I'm being forced to deal with people's ignorant anti-medicine crap.

[stonecourse]

Thinking about making this into a more general discourse blog, especially since summer vacation is over and I'm being forced to deal with people's ignorant anti-medicine crap.

[stonecourse]

A lot of people misunderstand what misinformation online looks like, and so, i think it's time to bring back this.

This is a graphic from a review conducted on DID misinformation from both tiktok and youtube. To quote it;

In a review of 97 TikToks featuring DID information, just 5.2% were considered useful, 10.3% were misleading, and 84.5% were neither useful or misleading, reported medical student Isreal Bladimir Munoz, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, at the American Psychiatric Association (APA)opens in a new tab or window annual meeting.

However, in a review of 60 YouTube videos featuring DID information, 51.7% were useful, 6.7% were misleading, and 41.7% were neither, Munoz said during a press briefing.

From the graphic;

Tiktok... Was a platform dedicated more towards self expression.

Now, I have my own criticisms of this review mainly how it excluded all non-english-speaking tiktoks which doesn't help the underreporting of vulnerable groups– one of the biggest contributors to the false idea that DID is rare, but yes. People expressing themselves are not directly affecting your care, and if they are, that's the fault of your healthcare worker for taking false information at face value instead of using that access to better goals. I think a lot of people tend to either demonize or idolize healthcare workers (not saying anon or quoigenicfromhell are doing this, it's just a wider trend due to the US healthcare system's effects on the population of the internet) and they forget that when entering med school, some people will be coming to class with some pretty fucking horrible preconceived notions that are directly influenced by their surrounding societies, and the system no matter how well it educates, can never get these biases out of people.

For example, I'm pretty public about studying pharmacy in a southern asian country, but I don't think I brought up how me and my sister are both majoring in that. We had a course on antipsychotics, antidepressants, and courses of treatment for cognitive disorders in particular last semester. It was a very respectful class, it emphasized patient-autonomy-first treatment methods, it was structured in a way that challenged negative bias, and avoided dramatization of these conditions. Now my sister isn't unintelligent by any means but she "goes with the flow" a lot, and had gone her entire life believing, due to our incredibly antipsych society, that schizophrenia was iatrogenic and a manufactured disorder much like hysteria that you could simply self-regulate out of. She told me after the semester ended, that having that class embarrassed and humiliated her, because she hadn't even realized she had held such an ableist belief due to it being so widespread. Our same society would uncritically embrace an endogenic system, I used to believe I was one and since people around me have realized the presence of my trauma, my validity has declined rapidly. It's still not endos' fault for existing.

Not everyone gets swayed by good classes. Some people hold onto this bigotry, this resentment. For what reason, I don't know, but I have seen people who carried themselves with dignity and poise, who claimed to be all-welcoming leftists, be racist and ableist and violent. I'm sorry you got turned down for a diagnosis, but that's the therapist's fault, not yours. Because in every hint of research I have done on the wider scale of DID knowledge, while there have been some cases of endogenic systems spreading misinformation (namely the normal dimensions of multiple personalities without amnesia paper being tossed around as proof of endogenous plurality), the people contributing the most misinformation are "concerned" singlets parroting the sociogenic models to critical acclaim.

Anyone saying Endos don't harm truamagenic systems can bite me. We literally got turned down for a diagnosis because "The culture online makes people believe theybare systems when they're not". When further pressed a licensed therapist literally said that the debate creates too much misinformation.

.

[stonecourse]

No, IDing as traumagenic or disordered doesn't give your abuser credit for your existence

And I can't believe I'm saying this. Here's some banger touhou music to listen to while reading this.

To frame it in a way that makes sense, when someone who has a physical disability tells you they are disabled, are they giving the metaphorical accident that caused it (that, if it were an accident at all and not congenital) credit for their existence as a disabled person? Is it a direct "YOU DID THIS TO ME" every time they express their existence? A youtube copyright claim over their presentation as a disabled person?

Acknowledging you exist because of circumstances doesn't give your abuser royalties or shoutouts or ad space between your selves, just like developing long covid doesn't put the @ of a fucking virus on your Tumblr, and the fact people are purposefully avoiding identifying as traumagenic or disordered because they don't wanna credit their abusers is driving me up the wall. It's weirdly ableist in the sense that it assumes all traumagenic systems who are open about being a system give credit to their abusers for abusing them– which guess what, is not at all part of what the word represents. It's not abusergenic, guys, trauma can be due to things unintentional, uncontrollable, unavoidable, and that's the thing! Centering the trauma lets YOU control the narrative, it doesn't mean your abuser now has airtime in your story as a system, because it doesn't even imply there ever was an abuser at all!

If you're uncomfortable with the word, just fucking say you're uncomfortable with the word and examine what that means for you all instead of making these wild and hurtful assumptions about literal strangers oh my GOD

[stonecourse]

everyone’s all “listen to poc!” “uplift people of color’s voices!” but when SEAsians and buddhists have a problem with the word tulpa suddenly it’s an attack from “”sysmeds””. i’m not even joking when i say it’s some of the most infuriatingly racist discourse i’ve ever seen. i’m not SEasian but i’m native american and it gives me the same feeling as when white people appropriate war bonnets and they’re like “i just thought it looked cool im appreciating your culture!!!”

white tulpas are racist and we need to start saying it with our whole chests, we need to start calling them racist to their faces until it sticks. i’m done being nice when people know otherwise.

and if a certain white tulpa blogger sees this: i’m glad you think your personal comfort is more important than the entire culture and history of tibet and buddhism. i’m glad you can wear that culture like a costume while real people are suffering from the effects of colonialism because of you fucking white people. just use a different fucking word for fucks sake.

.

[stonecourse]

"A lot of your sources" is a weird way to say less than half. Only 4 sources according to you are "not true", and even then you're disingenuously acting like you're bringing new information to the table by going "that's a personality system!" When SAS has said "personality system" and "memory system" as they were showing you the source. Cambrian was suggesting that "system" as a term originated with IFS. Not traded hands, not "got new usage", originated. As in it was never used with reference to alters before IFS. SAS was debunking that by showing examples of the term "system" being used in DID and OSDD concepts prior to IFS. It makes sense why these sources would be included even if they don't adhere to the current modern definition because you use the very same tactic when arguing for the terms "endogenic" and "tulpamacy" by arguing that histories are irrelevant and that intent matters. You give yourself leniency but deny others it. Why?

Anyway, let's assume SAS has 4 wrong sources and straight up exclude them (even though you somehow take issue with "weakly integrated" being used for systems. Do you not subscribe to the ToSD?) from the current usage. You still have six sources to debunk. Why obscure the dates of the sources you show screenshots of? When was the second screenshot's research conducted? The third? What sources are moot and which are correct? Date your data, because so far you only debunk two sources from 1985 and then drop the ball on the rest by not showing us where you got the screenshots from– because then how do we know you're not disingenuously debunking the sources from 1988 (post IFS) and acting like that proves your point?

"Some of the other sources show it", yes, from which date and time? And also, why is this source filed under those nebulous "other"?

(The fact this is a drug related study too like wow... pharmacists coming in clutch yet again. shoutout to my people)

Because this looks very much identical to the current usage – plural-friendly too might I add by not using the term alters and instead personalities – AND predates the use of "system" in IFS treatment. Or are you going to wring your hands about how "no no no, system of personalities is a word away it's different! They're supposed to be called alters!" While your debunks are confusing and difficult to follow?

But regardless, the current online usage of "system" started with Astraea's web and the rest of the bastards over at Empowered Multiplicity: Weaponized Ableism nicking it along with many other terms from the preexisting DID community with the intent of denying them it in their attempt to de-medicalize the disorder, fearmonger and push people away from treatment, and own those "basket-cases" because "everyone is abused as a child, you're not special", so... What is your defense against that? It better not be arguing in favor of that ableist rape apologist by saying they're just "a little problematic but so valuable to the community" again, because you having done it once is embarrassing, I'd hate to see you try it again.

Just wanting to share this, as it's relevant to the ongoing argument over who gets to use the term "system" in relation to plurality, multiplicity, and dissociative disorders.

TL, DR: It most likely originated in 1987 with Internal Family Systems therapy, which posits that everyone is a system, became popular with therapists using that model with their clients, and by the early 1990s was clearly in use by plurals of all stripes, regardless of origin or diagnostic status.

[stonecourse]

when we first started getting involved in syscourse spaces, it seems like there was a lot more discussion taking place. people who didn’t agree with each other had conversations to try and reach a better understanding. there wasn’t nearly as much of assuming the worst in others, and more “here’s what i believe and why, why do you believe differently?”

but these days the syscourse tag is… a mess.

folks shout into the void. whenever someone disagrees with what they have to say, they’re blocked instantly. no one is willing to have discussions or try to reach mutual understandings. many folks are proud of creating their own echo chambers, and are quite happy to only engage with people who think what they think.

like what even is the point of syscourse if not to open a genuine dialogue? what do people think “discourse” even means?

it’s exhausting, to say the least.

.

[stonecourse]

Are you someone else? Because you seem to have forgotten the fact that you are suggesting people have a default response to fictives by assuming they're 100% their source lore first and foremost. You're the one who's making law and even suggesting we coin terms, I was responding to you with exceptions because people were agreeing with your inane ramblings without considering like, at all, how many already existing widespread problems this would worsen. Then you came up to me with your absolutely brilliant rebuttal of "too long didn't read".

Yes, you are kicking and screaming – but I didn't need to drag you into anything. You were throwing a tantrum in the syscourse tag, and you said I'm a syscourse blog. What did you expect me to do, really, when someone this trigger-happy and immature is trying to decide how everyone else should treat fictives and using themselves as an authority? You even went for the classic guilt-trippy "if you're not part of this marginalized group SHUT UP AND FUCK OFF". I didn't block because I assumed you had a head on your shoulders and were open to gentle criticism – I even avoided using cuss words and tagged my post to the best of my ability, but if there's any lesson to learn from this interaction, it's that to assume makes an ass out of me and you.

#wtf are those prev tags #there is gen something wrong with you??

See, I was saying I prefer you go mask off on your bigotry and ableism like this, instead of waxing poetic about how you care so much about fictives and how you're so inclusive and a bleeding-heart radical inclusivist while telling anyone who's not you to fuck off. This exact same song and dance of gish galloping is getting tiring.

#also thanks for the trauma dump #and your trauma matters and ours doesn't #good to know!!!

Considering I literally said nothing of the sort about your trauma and even argued that people should be nicer about your post because you sounded like something upset you, you might want to stop getting an emotional reaction and leave Tumblr for a while.

The stories I told are proof of these problems, because you were so gung-ho about supporting fictives and "FUCK THE NONFICTIVES FUCK YOU IF YOU'RE NOT A FICTIVE YOU CAN'T SPEAK ON THIS FUCK OFF GO AWAY", not traumadumping. You might want to check the definition of that term instead of parroting it because it makes you sound better – like how you used "ableist" in the original post.

Anyway, go do breathing practices, talk to a loved one, switch out if you need to, because there's something there you might want to process and I'm not going to be your dartboard.

Do not fucking interact if you have opinions or experience with fictives and you think those are now law.

If a fictive wants to separate from their source that is their CHOICE and it is not automatically better for them to do so because you damn well said so. I’m mad and expressively mad because it’s pissed me off and caused our fictives some serious distress and fake claiming of themselves because y’all want to make them think they don’t know who tf they are when they were pretty damn sure of it before!

It needs to be normalized that: some fictives are their source. It is not a “delusion” and even if it was not all delusions are unhealthy. That’s ableist and fuck you.

We’ve found this post that triggered this rant /pos but we want to state it again:

The abuse in our fictive’s canon effects them in real ways and is real unless the fictive wants to state otherwise. Like the post said: YOU 🫵 YOU, as an outsider, do NOT have that say.

Fuck you kindly.

—Katsuki Bakugo 💥

P.S.: an idea: coin a term for fictives who ARE and AREN’T their source. Thank you.

[stonecourse]

And if you read what I said, you'd hear the stories of two fictives (and accounts of many more) who have already been harmed by "inclusive language".

Have a little more consistency in your moral framework.

Do not fucking interact if you have opinions or experience with fictives and you think those are now law.

If a fictive wants to separate from their source that is their CHOICE and it is not automatically better for them to do so because you damn well said so. I’m mad and expressively mad because it’s pissed me off and caused our fictives some serious distress and fake claiming of themselves because y’all want to make them think they don’t know who tf they are when they were pretty damn sure of it before!

It needs to be normalized that: some fictives are their source. It is not a “delusion” and even if it was not all delusions are unhealthy. That’s ableist and fuck you.

We’ve found this post that triggered this rant /pos but we want to state it again:

The abuse in our fictive’s canon effects them in real ways and is real unless the fictive wants to state otherwise. Like the post said: YOU 🫵 YOU, as an outsider, do NOT have that say.

Fuck you kindly.

—Katsuki Bakugo 💥

P.S.: an idea: coin a term for fictives who ARE and AREN’T their source. Thank you.

[stonecourse]

Do not fucking interact if you have opinions or experience with fictives and you think those are now law.

The fact you start with this phrase only to make your own fictivehood experience into law is just fascinating– but it looks like you were extremely upset going into this, so I'd excuse it as emotions getting the best of you.

The post you mention is this post, by plural-positivity;

It's a good post. It also mentions absolutely nothing about source separation. As a matter of fact, if you think this post somehow doesn't apply to fictives who experience source separation, you don't understand source separation and are making your own experiences with it into law.

The original post you talked about mentioned being endogenic-safe and thoughtform-safe. I'm not equipped to speak on endogenic systems of all types, so I'll be focused on the CDD (traumagenic) experience as it's the one we know and have done research on.

Since you value the reality of fictives over trivial things like... the definition of a delusion, let's explain by talking about one of our system's fictives who we will refer to as Y, for safety reasons.

Y has had a bad experience with source separation, where a former partner of ours – who was obsessively abusive – kept taking advantage of her feeling safe with them to tell her that the only way they could keep her around was for her immediately and completely distance herself from her source. And she tried actually going through with it. Used a different name, a different avatar– even her appearance in the inner world was changing a bit. She was miserable, as one may expect from someone who's been essentially bullied into changing for a partner, but she was changing.

And then we broke up with that partner, and she expressed a desire to go back on these changes. Of course, we didn't at all stop her from doing that– because she wanted to, because it made her happier and less inclined to wall up and isolate. But that didn't mean everything was better with her fully adhering to her source, because she has a lot of beliefs associated with that source.

For example, she doesn't believe she's human, so she doesn't require to eat or sleep. She also believes she needs to serve as a vessel for the gods of heaven, and that making contact with things on earth is going to slowly and eventually kill her. These aren't things she can just up and let go, as they're fundamental aspects of her source and she's bounced back to severe source adhesion to cope with abuse, but they're not healthy to keep up. She's in a human body, but she doesn't feed it. She's in a human world, but refuses to interact with it. We've lost almost 7 kilograms in the time she was most frequently fronting just last semester. She can't front without it causing damage to the body.

You state not all source beliefs are delusions, acting dismissively about delusions being harmful – which you state is ableist, despite the fact a lot of people who do experience delusions report disturbance to their quality of life, a real tangible harm – as if that's an argument towards continuing source attachment, but in the case of fictives, they all need to be examined. Another fictive of Y's source probably doesn't hold her same beliefs around deities, or is fine with the concept of mortality. But the fictives like her, who do believe they're their source, will inevitably be incompatible with the body that's not their source and that will cause significant pain, be it to the body or to the alter. Our male-presenting alters are incredibly dysphoric about existing in a female body, for example. That needs to be reconciled, which we try to allow them to by binding and other methods– but compromises go both ways.

Now let's talk about Y's in-system sibling figure, who we will call T – again, safety reasons.

T is from the same source media – it's a media we've been fixated solely on for 8 years, so we've had a history, but T isn't at all source-compliant. T is genderfluid and predominantly uses masculine or gender-neutral pronouns, when his source is cis afab fem-presenting. He also speaks in a way that's internet-slang heavy, has a particularly thick arabic accent, and dresses like a raccoon let loose in Hot Topic. His only association to his source remains in traumatic memories from that source, physical appearance, and his name. That's about it. As a result, he's actively pursued source separation since he showed up, refusing to talk about it, refusing to acknowledge it. He wanted to leave his source behind once and for all. This was not healthy, even if he was doing it with enthusiastic consent. He didn't examine his memories, nor how they affected him– he was still upset at what happened in his source, but avoided any discussion of it like the plague and frequently referred to it as a delusion. It got bad enough to a point where he had actively attempted suicide, driven to it by grief he tried his best to bury.

This isn't healthy source separation – and yes, I know, that must've been obvious. Source separation isn't to simply ignore and bury and forget your past. Source separation doesn't mean you're not allowed to feel hurt or angry or upset at traumatic things that shouldn't have happened to you. Source separation needs to have examination of what happened, to understand and process it.

In CDD systems, alter pseudomemories – the endogenic system term is exomemory if memory serves me right – tend to be reflections or metaphors of trauma that has occurred in real life in an attempt to translate said trauma into something that can be "digested" by the conscious mind. T's grief was a "reflection" of a death in the family that we've experienced, translated into his source's logic as him losing his sister. It isn't 1:1 to reality – it usually isn't – but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed as either make-believe nonsense or a harmless belief. It's a part of him that needs to be respected, it's a part that's got many aspects, both good and bad. He's got a fatherly instinct, he cares a lot for people, and he's great at talking to kids, but he's also still traumatized as fuck.

But the reason I'm telling you about T is because we need to look at how people were treating him. T was often treated as his source unless he blew up at people not to. He was referred to by she/her by default, he was treated as a posh haughty broad by everyone he met. But most importantly, he was often asked about his sister– who need I remind you, died. In a way that fucked him up. But in his source's canon, she's alive. He was formed this way, because brains don't give a rat's ass about source canon. His trauma that wasn't source-compliant was ignored because his source wasn't visibly traumatized.

People aren't normal about fictives either, in general.

And the way you constantly champion alters being referred to as their source as a solution to these complex problems I just outlined is frustrating. Because you have identified a real issue – people outside the system acting like they know a fictive better than themselves – and went on to contribute to the issue just in another way. New alter help channels are filled to the brim with people trying to guess the sources of introjects, asking them really invasive questions that, to a factive or a non-introject, would cross into being an attempt at getting them to dox themselves. People play Akinator with others' identities. Fictives are already assumed to be their source– the safety reasons I censored Y and T's names is because their sources are universally despised and media illiterate weebs think they're both evil nazis. We have been harassed for having introjects of the "bad source" in our system. Y was told to apologize for mass murdering people in SOMEONE'S FANFICTION. To quote us from a conversation we had about how people interact with fictives;

P.S: Coining these terms would overcomplicate the relationship between a fictive and their source because separation and adhesion aren't enough – I even made up adhesion just now because there's no term for consciously leaning in too heavily into your source. Having a love/hate relationship with your source, acknowledging parts but not all, having aspects you wish you didnt but can't change, all of these aren't represented by two terms, and it'll become harder to examine something this fluid. Besides, we have enough terms in pluralpedia already, thank you.

Do not fucking interact if you have opinions or experience with fictives and you think those are now law.

If a fictive wants to separate from their source that is their CHOICE and it is not automatically better for them to do so because you damn well said so. I’m mad and expressively mad because it’s pissed me off and caused our fictives some serious distress and fake claiming of themselves because y’all want to make them think they don’t know who tf they are when they were pretty damn sure of it before!

It needs to be normalized that: some fictives are their source. It is not a “delusion” and even if it was not all delusions are unhealthy. That’s ableist and fuck you.

We’ve found this post that triggered this rant /pos but we want to state it again:

The abuse in our fictive’s canon effects them in real ways and is real unless the fictive wants to state otherwise. Like the post said: YOU 🫵 YOU, as an outsider, do NOT have that say.

Fuck you kindly.

—Katsuki Bakugo 💥

P.S.: an idea: coin a term for fictives who ARE and AREN’T their source. Thank you.

[stonecourse]

sometimes opening the syscourse tag makes u feel like pic related

Man I open the syscourse tag to look for posts to clown on and y'all just do it urself. Like I'm sorry that happened or I'm happy for u . I ain't reading all that. It's actually not that fucking deep pls put ur phoen down for like 2 minutes . Talk to a real human person. Wow

[stonecourse]

@avianadonis sorry, for whatever reason i can't reblog and reply to your post directly even though i'm fairly sure you don't have me blocked, so i'll just screenshot and put it here. if you DO have me blocked, feel free to ignore. if you don't, here's a fair warning: this is kind of long.

for context: this was avianadonis's reply to my post criticizing two of sophie's biggest talking points in a recent post where an anon in an ask criticized her for moving goalposts on discussion of tulpamancy, and refusing to listen to tibetan people when they spoke out on the discussion of tulpamancy and cultural appropriation. i don't agree with everything anon said because some things were wrong, like the location of tibet, but i like that they actually bothered to criticize her for these things.

and well, i'm pretty sure i clearly outlined all of the problems i have with her arguments in the original post i made, which would qualify as my arguments against hers, but sure, i have the day off so i will elaborate further.

my arguments against hers are the following:

a) she's speaking for tibetan people when she doesn't live in tibet or understand the political climate of tibet and what activists in tibet are doing to try and liberate themselves--it's more than likely there are tibetan activists in and out of tibet fighting against the CCP because where there is oppression and propaganda, there are people fighting back against it with everything they've got, even in small and non-violent ways; such as referring to the chinese takeover of tibet not as "the peaceful liberation of tibet" as the CCP refers to it, but rather as "the chinese invasion of tibet". this shows you plain as day how tibetan diaspora view and understand the situation.

you're telling me that she can't listen to tibetan diaspora, (in this incredibly niche discourse, where it may be difficult to find many tibetan buddhists or tibetan people/diaspora on tumblr getting into this discourse, mind you), on how their culture is treated by westerners? all while she's continuously citing a book written by a white woman in the 19-fucking-30s.

she is speaking as a white person, presumably in the west, and speaking for tibetan people, and saying that she can't even trust them on their own issues because of the CCP propaganda.

and yet she, in spite of all this, believes that she has any authority to be speaking for a group of people currently under chinese control against their will, and their diaspora.

that is white saviorism at its finest.

i'm not going to pretend to be an expert on tibet because i'm not. i did a rough wikipedia page read on a couple of things related to tibet and the chinese takeover and went from there.

but what sophie is doing, and i know this because it takes an ignorant person to know an ignorant person, is outright pretending she has more knowledge and understanding than she actually does on the situation, and has decided that the tibetan people, living in tibet or not, are not reliable on what does and doesn't harm them and their culture because of CCP propaganda and because she disagrees with them, then used a vague quote from the dalai lama to justify taking aspects of tibetan buddhism, where she truly has little understanding of the actual practice it comes from.

at this point, i care less about the discussion of the word tulpa itself and more about the racism and white saviorism and pseudo-intellectualism that sophie uses to justify using the word and what that says about the people that follow and agree with her. because jesus fuck, it's kind of horrifying.

and every time a tibetan buddhist comes in and criticizes her, she ignores them because they're anti-endo, or because she assumes they are and labels them as anti-endo regardless of if they are or not.

and b) she's openly admitting to refusing criticism for citing papers that don't support her arguments. at all. be it because they are assuming tulpas/non-dissociative systems exist in the first place without proving it, because they're clearly about complex dissociative disorders and not endogenic systems (and by clearly, i mean outright referring to trauma an dissociation), because they're outright trying to disprove the existence of complex dissociative disorders with the fantasy model, or because they're about psychotic people hearing voices, and the alternative treatments outside of medications to treat the voices, (not herbal remedies; talk therapy and engaging with the voice(s) with a trained professional).

this is all part of a larger pattern with sophie. she bullshits, she pretends to know more than she actually does on these subjects, and acts like she has any ground on which to stand and call herself an authority, and when people have genuine criticism that she can't bullshit against and twist to make herself look smart to her followers, she ignores it. and people eat it up because she seems nice and polite and seems educated, even when responding to horrific vitriol.

nobody bothers to read the papers she cites, nobody bothers to check her sources, they assume that she will do all those things for them and that she is a trusted source without looking into it themselves. i know this because i have had people cite to me papers that are not valid evidence for endogenics existing, (such as the survey that finds people with tulpas have better mental health than they did before, without proving they exist and even outright stating that this survey can't prove they exist), and a friend recently had someone in a discord server openly admit to citing a paper without reading it first. there are carrds compiling "evidence" that endogenic systems exist where the people openly admit to not reading the papers, and very even if they did, they obviously aren't being critical about it because they're acting like a survey that doesn't attempt to prove the existence of endogenic systems somehow proves the existence of endogenic systems.

i can't remember if she still has this paper on her list or not, but someone emailed the author of it and said that not only was her paper not about endogenic systems, she didn't approve of her work being used in this manner because it was about functional multiplicity as a valid healing option for DID alongside final fusion. not endogenic systems.

look, i don't hate endogenic systems. because of the fact that there's a lack of research into whether or not endogenic systems exist and because i choose to believe in the ideology of live and let live, i mostly don't care what endogenics are doing with themselves as long as they're not actually hurting anyone, and while many people have varying definitions of what that means, i personally don't find the existence of endogenic and nondissociative systems to in and of themselves be harmful. i just hate that so many of them are so desperate to prove themselves against the hate that they're becoming ignorant in the face of how science actually works in order to do it.

leaving everything up to one person that they uncritically follow.

many of them are buying into the pattern that sophie has consistently been putting out for a couple of years now, and i find it so disgustingly disingenuous because she's giving many endogenic and nondissociative systems a false sense of hope to prove themselves when that's not what's actually happening; from repeating debunked arguments to citing papers that actively go against what she's saying, to consistently, time and time again, showing us that she has not read a lick of literature on complex dissociative disorders. all the while, ignoring any and all criticism that she can't twist to make herself look good.

all this to say that sophie has a long pattern of pseudointellectualism--pretending to know what she's talking about when she doesn't, and bullshitting herself every which way to make herself sound smart and educated. then, most infuriatingly, refusing to respond to valid criticism that actually bothers to bring her claims into question, and referring to all of her critics as anti-endos whether they actually believe in endogenic systems or not.

so, do you actually have an argument as to why she's correct or are you another uncritical follower of everything she says, who never bothers to bring any of her claims into question?

[stonecourse]

Debunking Series: Normal Dimensions of Multiple Personality Without Amnesia

Hello all! I spent the better part of today (the last 3 hours or so, I believe) reading through a horrific article that was part of a list of "sources proving nondisordered plurality." I wanted to read through all of these sources and thoroughly discuss what is good and bad about them.

Sadly, this article has nothing good.

The full debunk can be found at this link, or below the cut. The link also includes a link to the article in question, as well as the casebook referenced in the article.

TL;DR: This article is horrifically ableist, fakeclaims DID systems (including a real actual case study), and suggests that DID systems are simply fantasizing their alters due to traumatic events -- suggesting that everyone is "naturally" plural, and that DID systems imagine new alters to hold amnesia.

TW: Fakeclaiming, discussions of trauma (SA, abandonment, war, food scarcity), poor research methods.

“IMAGINATION, COGNITION AND PERSONALITY, Vol. 18(3) 205-220, 1998-99

NORMAL DIMENSIONS OF MULTIPLE PERSONALITY

WITHOUT AMNESIA”

The TL;DR summary of the article: These people made a survey with the express purpose of proving that multiple personality states are completely normal. To do this, they fakeclaim DID, suggest it is completely imagined, and that the only pathological part of DID is the amnesia. Their survey proves nothing beyond what they claim it should be showing, their sample size is a mere 209 people at a single college (with no remarks to age, race, gender, etc – all of which are factors in developing DID), and they end off the article with such wonderful lines as “It is not surprising that a fantasizer like Frieda would exhibit dissociative amnesia in response to trauma, even though most traumatized persons do not dissociate, because absorption in fantasy has been shown to be a diathesis for dissociative responses to traumatic stressors [6],” or “The fact that ‘animal alters’ have actually been reported by DID patients [30] gives added credence to our suggestions that multiple personality results when emotionally incompatible self images are fantasized (with or without amnesia), not when personality and memory  are fragmented.” Simply put, this article is horrific, and proves nothing. Full live reactions below.

“In Harter’s view, it is not unusual for the normal adolescent to experience himself or herself as different people in different situations” – Is this not simply IFS? It is not at all unusual to experience yourself as multiple different people - “work self versus home self” has always been a thing. This is remarkably different from the Completely Dissociated From Each Other Personalities that we see in DID.

“Moreover, the old DSM-III-R syndrome of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) had diagnostic criteria corresponding to multiple self-identity and multiple self-control, but none corresponding to dissociative amnesia [9], and studies found 30 percent to 50 percent of people with MPD to be “high-functioning”” – Excuse me, but why is this relevant? Why are you bringing up MPD, from a previous DSM, from a time before we knew somewhat better about DID and how it forms? At the point this was published, the DSM 4 had been out for 5 years; why go back to a previous DSM? Why remark on the “high-functioning” label? Is this meant to argue that those high-functioning individuals were actually endogenic? Is this meant to argue that those with DID cannot be high-functioning? I think this is a completely unintentional bit of ableism on the author's parts.

“Our thesis predicts that many more, totally normal people with multiple personalities, but no amnesia, never even come to the attention of the clinical psychological establishment.” – … You mean OSDD? You mean the other representation of dissociative disorder in which amnesia barriers are not present between alters? You mean that completely clinically recognized phenomenon? Yeesh. DDNOS was in the DSM-4 – they have no excuse.

“Such an assertion, however, ignores the fact that many religious adults with no psychopathology experience God as their imaginary companion. Two studies have even documented normal dissociation, without pathological dissociation, in religious mystics who ritualistically imagine themselves being possessed by spirits [19, 20].” – Yes, remarkably, the DSM-4 did not feel the need to remark that a purely spiritual experience is different from the pathological psychological experience they were describing. Because of studies like this one, however, the DSM-5 added in the cultural exemption criteria, in which this sort of thing is explained as Very Clearly Not DID. No fault of the authors for not reading the future, but again – are they now arguing that mystics and ritual possession are endogenic plurality?? What does this have to do with DID? They’re totally different experiences.

METHODS – This is, by far, the shortest methodology section I have ever seen in an article. The summary of their methods: They gave people a survey that they, themselves, crafted. This survey consisted of 31 questions, each with three parts. People self reported their sense of self, sense of control, and sense of memory. It was posited by the authors that higher rankings on A and B were demonstrable as higher levels of dissociation, but only higher rankings on C were indicative of DID… without… stating why that was or how that was proven. They also failed to address: was this completed online, or on paper? Was there a time limit? Were participants paid for their answers? How did you authenticate that the survey actually correlates to the DES (which, this article itself points out is a flawed and only partial examination of dissociation, which cannot, on its own, validate DID)? This study did jack shit and they know it.

SUBJECTS – Oh my god it got even shorter??? This is a failing grade in any psych class. “The subjects for this research were randomly sampled from General Psychology classes at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and were tested in group settings. Two hundred nine subjects completed the questionnaires.” What are their ages? Gender? Race? Do any of them have a diagnosis of a dissociative disorder already? Have you examined these randomly selected individuals for their medical histories of schizophrenia or BPD, two things that impact the sense of self tremendously? How could you call these normal representations of multiple personalities when you can’t even tell me their age range??? This is stunningly negligent. 

“Our finding in Figures 3 and 4—that subjects tend not to exhibit multiple personality with amnestic features on Scale C unless they also exhibit normal features of multiple personality on Scales A and B—further supports our hypothesis that the DID patient’s pathological amnesia for trauma is superimposed on pre-existing normal dimensions of multiple personality.” – Woah there buddy, slow the roll. Your hypothesis was simply that multiplicity without amnesia was a normal experience, and that the trauma is what creates amnesia. You have now changed your hypothesis to be that DID systems are just naturally plural with some pesky amnesia being the issue. You’re saying the alters are just… normal, and that DID systems who have alters are only disordered because they have amnesia. What does this mean for the alters, then? Why are my alters suffering from dissociation, then? Is the amnesia my only problem?? Jesus…

“Indeed, in the only case of multiple personality in the DSM-III-R Casebook, the patient Frieda started fantasizing alternate personalities during early childhood” – WHAT. WHAT IN THE FUCK. Are you really, really, going so far as to suggest that this case study was of an individual who was naturally multiple in childhood, because she fantasized (you know, fantasy theory, that shit Freud pushed, that shit that’s been used to invalidate and fakeclaim DID systems for years???) her fucking alters… Out of curiosity I went and found this casebook. More discussion about this topic is below the liveblog, because surprise surprise, this article purposely omit things about the case study…

“It is not surprising that a fantasizer like Frieda would exhibit dissociative amnesia in response to trauma, even though most traumatized persons do not dissociate” – Fuck you. Genuinely, where does this claim come from? I know you cite a source, but genuinely, everything we have seen about fucking dissociative disorders is that the people with them, surprise surprise, fucking dissociate. What gives you the goddamn right to fakeclaim?

“It remains an empirical question, however, whether actual DID patients of this sort would remember their alternate personalities well enough to score high on Scale A, but Figure 3 suggests that they would” – They have to use the word ‘suggests’ here because they never fucking clarified if any of their participants have DID. 

“The gentleman who experiences irreconcilably violent impulses on the football field, for example, might imaginally integrate such impulses into an alternate personality that is “pure animal.” The fact that “animal alters” have actually been reported by DID patients [30] gives added credence to our suggestions that multiple personality results when emotionally incompatible self images are fantasized (with or without amnesia), not when personality and memory are fragmented.” – Read that again and fully understand it. Need a translation? “The man who has violent impulses that conflict with his regular personality might imagine that those impulses are a violent animal personality. This suggests that animal alters in DID are just conflicting emotions that are imagined to be real alters.” This is the article people are upholding as endogenic plurality.

To be blunt: fuck anyone who reads this and tries to suggest it’s proving endogenic plurality.

Discussion of the DSM-III Casebook (Specifically, the entry on Frieda) - This is entirely from Circular, none of this is from the article, so I'll drop the color coding for this section.

Located on Page 114 of the Casebook (located at this link, this was the best I could find – made an account, borrowed the book for an hour), is the case study Frieda. Frieda was a 42 year old woman who, accompanied by her husband, sought consultation with a psychiatrist. She went primarily at her husband’s request due to marital problems.

Frieda was “daydreaming” during the consultations, and her husband reported her acting startlingly different at times (dressed in new attire, leaving the house for hours or even days with no communication, seeming to act like a little girl after disagreements and being unable to get out of that space, etc). Under hypnosis, Frieda was able to describe events in her childhood, which were incredibly traumatic (father was killed, mother abandoned her, was raised in multiple orphanages that were lacking in food and supplies, and raised by nuns, etc etc etc). What Freida describes next is that, at the age of 4, she had an “imaginary companion” of the same age who she would “run away with” to a field to play with dolls. This companion remained with her well past childhood, and their escapes from reality would only increase in frequency after she was molested by Soviet soldiers after the war.

The case describes her struggles in her marriage (particularly with a more promiscuous alter – if I had to hazard a guess, a sexual persecutor – stepping in frequently when arguments occurred) and struggles with parenthood (where a little would clearly begin fronting and she would be returned to the war-time flashbacks). After leaving hypnosis, the client had no memory of these events.

This is clearly DID. This is very similar to much of what I’ve experienced and gone through, albeit with hypnosis taking a very different role in my own life. The article posits that this woman was raped, and before that instance, she had simply an imaginary friend. This completely ignores – and in my opinion seeks to invalidate – the traumatic childhood Freida experienced. The authors are positing that her experience of having alters is completely normal, and the thing that caused her amnesia was the sexual assault she experienced. This is ignoring her feelings toward her mother who abandoned her, which today is regarded as a primary leading cause of DID developing (disorganized attachment theories). 

So, in order to prove that Freida is merely a regular, normal person with amnesia, they fakeclaim her childhood trauma and suggest she’s simply fantasizing these alters (and, of course, all of their actions and everything, which she has no memory of) due to later trauma she experienced. Because god forbid anyone acknowledge a DID system having childhood trauma. 

[stonecourse]

Syscourse has a larping problem.

Title is not a joke.

Too many of y'all talk and act like you're the head of your very own personalized bloodsports stream while treating everyone else as if they're abstract concepts that don't have feelings, and it's embarrassing. Go talk to a flesh and blood person in the real world, remember what it's like to socialize. Develop a sense of decency. Have some shame.

[stonecourse]

as a trans person in a system who understands how the sysmed/transmed connection works (especially with the fact both are seen as a mental illness that needs to be eradicated and that is harmful to Vulnerable UWU Teenagers on the internet and people experiencing them are dangerous and people who use rare labels are faking and making "real systems/trans people look bad" and so on), i want to understand why you believe the trans comparison is bad. can you explain your perspective?

About the comparison between being trans and being a system generally, I feel it is repetitive and really just gets us nowhere. I also do not find the same systemic, legal, and social implications in syscourse as I do with trans identity. I also don't find the same risk of widespread and systemic violent physical/sexual abuse and death in syscourse regarding non-medical systems as I do with trans identity.

That does not mean that one is necessarily worse than the other or that one doesn't matter, but instead that they are different enough that to compare them feels like it disrespects nuance and the bigger picture of all of this.

Regarding the word sysmed - I think it's moreso just... Well, unhelpful?

I have less issues with the specific terminology or the roots of the word than others, I feel - I find it to be maybe poor taste at most, but I do not think it is transphobic.

My issue is moreso that I feel it no longer really has a consistent definition (I have seen it applied to anti-endo systems who are not necessarily sysmedical, and I have seen singlet syscringers called sysmeds even though they were 100% anti-plural/anti-system, including anti-CDD systems) and I feel that discussions where the word sysmed is used very quickly get muddied because I feel that in a discourse setting the word is very emotionally charged even if that isn't always the intention.

Many well-known syscourse figures most commonly labelled sysmeds do not even fall under the traditional definition of sysmed - They believe non-medical systems and endos exist, but have different ideas about how this should be approached community-wise.

In my experience being in these spaces, it feels like sysmed has, functionally, just become another synonym for anti-endo or even anti-system and isn't used with specifically the stance of "all systems must be medical" in mind.

For me, it's a lot easier just to use anti-endo if that is what I mean instead of using a word with so much controversy - Using that word means nobody will listen to what you are saying because it is such an emotionally charged word, and in my opinion that emotional charge does come from a reasonable place, which I will talk about in the next few paragraphs.

I honestly just don't find it helpful to draw comparisons between online discourse and those which have extremely severe external impacts regarding discrimination - Such as being trans.

I don't really know of any legal consequences for being specifically a non-medical system - Not for being perceived as mentally ill or laws regarding general religious practices and restrictions, but very specifically being a non-medical system.

Yet I do see this in the vast difference in treatment and resources for medical binary transgender people vs. non-dysphoric trans people as well as trans people that are not 100% binary.

In many places, only dysphoric transgender people get help or official acknowledgement. You have to jump through many hoops to access treatment and that often involves documentation of "long-term, severe gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria".

Nonbinary people often have to "pick a side" in order to access hormone treatment, they still cannot pick "X" in many places as a gender marker legally, nonbinary people who do not medically transition go unacknowledged, so on.

There is also systemic erasure of these groups which transmeds feed into.

This is not, at all, to say that the issues of non-medical systems or endogenic systems are not important or that their issues are "lesser-than" or to play any kind of pain olympics (I do not believe there is any kind of "discrimination threshold" that necessarily needs to be met for it to matter) - Just that it feels like a different area of conversation which invites many messy implications.

Specifically, it is comparing a group of individuals who themselves have extremely high rates of identifying as transgender to their oppressors, and many of these systems themselves have been heavily and violently discriminated against for being transgender. So, yes, comparing them to a transphobic group such as transmeds is likely to shut down any conversation and potentially bring up very hurt feelings and memories of trauma.

And I am just... Not interested in doing that. I want to have discussions, not give someone an identity crisis or flashback.

I feel that when used publicly, the word sysmed is just used to villainize and seperate certain groups and concepts rather than as a genuine, good-faith communication tool - I cannot express the amount of times I have seen things such as fusion, the ToSD, parts language, dormancy, all language more traditionally associated with being a more medical-leaning system, called a "sysmed concept".

I find that unhelpful not only in general, but also as a pro-endo traumagenic DID system. I feel often I cannot describe how my system functions as a disordered system without adding many disclaimers about me speaking only on our personal experience because suspicion about us will be raised solely on the basis of being a medical system using medical language.

I have often found myself asked to censor discussion of my system's very natural functions or language for the comfort of others because it reminded them of sysmeds, and I have come across many people associating traumagenic inherently with sysmedical.

"Traumagenics are cool until they start being sysmeds."

"I wish traumagenics would just leave us endos alone."

"Most traumagenics are sysmeds."

So on.

When the phrase "sysmed" is associated with hatred, especially the level of hatred and violence transmeds perform, and when many people within the system community begin to call "sysmeds" a hate group, when the concept of being a system and medical becomes tied to connotations of such strong ideas about discourse and identity, well... It really is only the expected fallout of that to be that anyone who is a system and medical would be caught in the crossfire.

Long post, but that's my reasoning for not using it personally. I don't have strong enough feelings on its usage to actively strongly discourage others from using it completely, but to me, language is primarily a communication tool and if it is not helping me to communicate or get ideas across effectively then I don't really see a point in me using the word.

[stonecourse]

The research on the other potential causes for dissociative identity disorder

The thing about people who don't think that Complex Dissociative Disorders are trauma disorders is that they seem to think that researchers just saw the first connection on the board (dissociation being connected to trauma) and automatically assumed with no other evidence or research into other options that Complex Dissociative Disorders are only trauma disorders. They think that researchers and professionals didn't look into other options first before deciding that Complex Dissociative Disorders are trauma disorders.

This is an absolutely insane notion that people seem to believe and this belief is evidenced by people only having read parts of the DSM, seeing that DID is in the dissociative disorders section rather than the trauma and stressor related disorders section, and by them claiming that other options haven't been explored.

This is false. Below are screenshots of citations of 18 different papers that I gathered on the subject of alternate causes for complex dissociative disorders and/or otherwise looking into the general phenomenology/epidemiology of complex dissociative disorders.

I gathered all of these sources from looking at two papers that examined complex dissociative disorders and the empirical evidence behind them and/or disproving common myths about DID, such as it being a disorder unrelated to trauma. Imagine how much more I could find if I expanded my looking into this subject into the references sited by the papers I mention here.

Researchers have tried to look for other causes for DID, for a variety of reasons from not believing in the existence of DID, wanting to cover their bases, or not believing that trauma could be this severe and prevalent towards children.

The verdict in the end is that the other theories don't hold up to the clinical evidence gathered over the course of decades.

Non-traumagenic DID is not possible. There is no reason for one to dissociate to such an extent that they have to disown their own life experiences repeatedly until the consciousness divide between the life experiences they do own and the ones that they disintegrate become separate identities.

At its core, pathological dissociation is a failure of integration of life experiences. This happens due to intense stress and trauma that a person experiences, and when they experience this stress and trauma during the formative experiences of their lives (i.e. childhood), these deeply traumatic and formative experiences are so unacceptable to them that there is no way for them to integrate these events into their autobiographical memory and sense of self, and have to say that these experiences happened to someone else: to someone who deserved it, to someone who could handle it, to someone who likes it, to someone who can't feel it, etc.

Alternatively, as a protection mechanism and/or an internal self self harm mechanism, they can own the actions of people perpetuating abuse against them and form an internal identity that is based around the perpetrators so that the trauma/abuse doesn't happen more, or to have some kind of internal control over their trauma/abuse.

They also form identities that do not remember, own or aren't affected by the memories of the trauma so that they can continue on in daily life with minimal effects from the trauma, where these parts may disown, try to disprove or otherwise heavily avoid the trauma, triggers for the trauma memories, or anything else that reminds them of the trauma.

This is how complex dissociative disorders cannot be anything other than trauma-based in nature. They are caused by trauma, and primarily exhibiting the symptom of dissociation to various extents.

Dissociative Identity Disorder is a trauma-based disorder, end of.

Further Reading:

“Boysen GA, VanBergen A. A review of published research on adult dissociative identity disorder: 2000–2010. J Nerv Ment Dis 2013;201:5–11” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 268)

“Şar V. Epidemiology of dissociative disorders: an overview. Epidemiol Res Int 2011;2011:404538” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 268)

“Brand B, Loewenstein RJ. Dissociative disorders: an overview of assessment, phenomenology and treatment. Psychiatr Times 2010 (Oct);27:62–9” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 267)

“Ross CA, Miller SD, Reagor P, et al. (1990b) Structured interview data on 102 cases of multiple personality disorder from four centers. American Journal of Psychiatry 147: 596–601.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 416)

“Ross CA (1997) Dissociative Identity Disorder: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment of Multiple Personality. New York: Wiley.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Rodewald F, Dell PF, Wilhelm-Gößling C, et al. (2011a) Are major dissociative disorders characterized by a qualitatively different kind of dissociation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 12: 9–24.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Reinders AATS, Nijenhuis ERS, Quak J, et al. (2006) Psychobiological characteristics of dissociative identity disorder: A symptom provocation study. Biological Psychiatry 60: 730–740.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Putnam FW (2006) Dissociative disorders. In: Cicchetti D and Cohen DJ (eds) Developmental Psychopathology, Volume 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 657–695.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Myrick AC, Brand BL and Putnam FW (2013) For better or worse: the role of revictimization and stress in the course of treatment for dissociative disorders. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 14: 375–389.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Middleton W and Butler J (1998) Dissociative identity disorder: An Australian series. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 32: 794–804. Modestin J, Ebner” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“McDowell DM, Levin FR and Nunes EV (1999) Dissociative identity disorder and substance abuse: The forgotten relationship. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 31: 71–83.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Martínez-Taboas A (1991) Multiple personality in Puerto Rico: Analysis of fifteen cases. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders 4: 189–192.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Lewis DO, Yeager CA, Swica Y, et al. (1997) Objective documentation of child abuse and dissociation in 12 murderers with dissociative identity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 154: 1703–1710.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 415)

“Kluft RP (1993) Multiple personality disorder. In: Spiegel D (ed.) Dissociative Disorders: A Clinical Review. Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press, pp. 17–44.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Kluft RP (1984) Treatment of multiple personality disorder: A study of 33 cases. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 7: 9–29.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Brand BL, Classen C, McNary SW, et al. (2009c) A review of dissociative disorders treatment studies. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 197: 646–654” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 413)

“Coons PM (1994) Confirmation of childhood abuse in childhood and adolescent cases of multiple personality disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 182: 461–464.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 413)

“Coons PM and Bowman ES (2001) Ten-year follow-up study of patients with dissociative identity disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 2: 73–89.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 413)

“Coons PM, Bowman ES and Milstein V (1988) Multiple personality disorder: A clinical investigation of 50 cases. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 176: 519–527.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Dorahy MJ (2001b) Dissociative identity disorder and memory dysfunction: The current state of experimental research, and its future directions. Clinical Psychology Review 21: 771–795.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Eich E, Macauley D, Loewenstein RJ, et al. (1997) Memory, amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder. Psychological Science 8: 417–422.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Forrest KA (2001) Toward an etiology of dissociative identity disorder: A neurodevelopmental approach. Consciousness and Cognition 10: 259–293.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Ellason JW, Ross CA and Fuchs DL (1996) Lifetime Axis I and II comorbidity and childhood trauma history in dissociative identity disorder.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 414)

“Şar V and Ross CA (2009) A research agenda for the dissociative disorders field. In: Dell PF and O’Neil JA (eds) Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond. New York: Routledge, pp. 693–708.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 416)

“Şar V, Yargiç LI and Tutkun H (1996) Structured interview data on 35 cases of dissociative identity disorder in Turkey. American Journal of Psychiatry 153: 1329–1333.” (Dorahy et al., 2014, p. 416)

“Carlson ET. The history of multiple personality in the United States: I. The beginnings. Am J Psychiatry 1981;138:666–8.” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 266)

“Loewenstein RJ. Anna O: reformulation as a case of multiple personality disorder. In: Goodwin JM, ed. Rediscovering childhood trauma: historical casebook and clinical applications. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1993; 139–67.” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 266)

“van der Hart O, Dorahy MJ. History of the concept of dissociation. In: Dell PF, O’Neil JA, eds. Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond. New York: Routledge, 2009:3–26” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 266)

“Dalenberg C, Loewenstein R, Spiegel D, et al. Scientific study of the dissociative disorders. Psychother Psychosom 2007;76: 400–1” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 266)

“Sar V. The scope of dissociative disorders: an international perspective. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2006;29:227–44” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 266)

“Brand BL, Loewenstein RJ, Spiegel D. Dispelling myths about dissociative identity disorder treatment: an empirically based approach. Psychiatry 2014;77:169–89” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 267)

“Brand BL, Classen CC, McNary SW, Zaveri P. A review of dissociative disorders treatment studies. J Nerv Ment Dis 2009; 197:646–54” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 267)

“Ross CA. Epidemiology of multiple personality disorder and dissociation. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1991;14:503–17” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 267)

“Loewenstein RJ, Putnam FW. The clinical phenomenology of males with MPD: a report of 21 cases. Dissociation 1990;3: 135–43” (Brand et al., 2016, p. 268)