#i also have no prev experience in anything regarding science

[mysicklove]

i have a GROUP (???!?!!**) interview on wednesday to be a microbiology lab assistant and i ridden with anxiety oh my god

[sysmedsaresexist]

prev anon: worded something badly in the beginning of my message, i meant "so you do want endos to use separate language?" not don't want. probably could assume that but just correcting myself.

Anon, I don't want ANY buts. No more, "well so did IFS 😤," or, "depends on your definition of plural," or, "but system has so many meanings!!?!"-- nothing. Stop making excuses and answer the question:

Is what they said accurate, or is it a misrepresentation of the history of MPD/DID?

This is a problem that syscoursers on the anti side have been upset about for years. Stop erasing our history and ignoring sources. Stop making excuses for people who are spreading bad information. Hold people accountable when they don't own up to their mistakes.

So far, cambriancrew's inaccurate post is still up, they're still defending it, and Sophie can't bring herself to admit I'm right outside of vaguely hiding the admission in the middle of a wall of text that none of her followers are going to read.

This is how misinformation gets spread.

What is it that you think I'm upset about? Because it's not about endos using the word system.

I provided MANY sources at this point that specifically talk about dissociated systems of parts and alters, and use system as a standalone to refer to multiples identities/alters/parts.

This isn't rocket science. It's really easy.

Is what was said by Cambrian, and in their source, accurate, or does it paint a very different picture of early MPD?

Onto the next part:

In an ideal world, the language would be different. As I said, it's not because system isn't accurate to endos or IFS, but because the experience of being a system in DID is very different.

It's not just internal parts, like in IFS, and I'm upset that Schwartz seems to be behind in his understanding of current research into DID that point to a physical basis for the disorder.

The dissociation involved in separating our alters is very different than that in endogenic systems. We frequently see endogenic systems realizing they're disordered, not because they suddenly remember trauma, but because they realize they're struggling in different ways that don't fit into the "typical" endogenic experience. I think if the language around DID emphasised the dissociative, dysfunctional experience (please see my previous posts regarding dysfunction in DID to understand this point-- on that point, did you know the DSM says you can be totally functional and still have DID?), it would be easier for people to figure out what they would benefit most from.

I've said before that it really feels like those with DID/OSDD will have to change their language, rather than endos changing theirs. I'm not even angry, just sad, because we've already lost so much (and continue to lose more as our history is twisted), but it does seem that a division in language might help people figure out what they're experiencing earlier on, and thus be able to get help earlier.

A division in language would also help with syscourse, because right now it's just a bunch of people yelling about the same words with different definitions (all of them valid and true), but why not just adjust language so no one is stepping on each other? If you want to talk about this experience, here's some words that will get the point across without having to clarify, "but I still believe in endos, I'm just talking about this specific thing right now that is for DID/OSDD/PDID/UDD/those still diagnosed with MPD/DDNOS"-- I don't think that belief is unreasonable or says anything about the endogenic experience.

I mean, we're already kind of going in that direction-- CDD system is being used pretty regularly by those DID+ every acronym under the sun, singlets in IFS therapy usually just say they're in IFS, they don't declare themselves a system. Ideally those that feel they're a system due to being incredibly in tune with their inner parts could call themselves IFS systems.

Endos... I dunno, I guess they get to keep just "system".

Again, it's sad.

[fidelizer-crack-31]

Download Fidelizer crack (license key) latest version 9DRZ!

💾 ►►► DOWNLOAD FILE 🔥🔥🔥 This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Forums New posts Search forums. Articles New articles New comments Search articles. Classifieds New listings New comments Search listings. Log in Register. Search only containers. Search titles only. Search Advanced search…. New posts. Search forums. Log in. Install the app. Latest Thread Images. Featured Sponsor Listings. Drop JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Fidelizer Pro - Real or Snake Oil? Thread starter watchnerd Start date Jan 18, Status Not open for further replies. Prev 1 … Go to page. Go to page. First Prev 17 of 46 Go to page. Joined Jul 12, Posts 2, Likes Therefore, my conclusion is that, while I wouldn't expect Fidelizer to make a significant difference on many systems including my current one , I have to say that the claims it makes do in fact make sense. Click to expand Thanks Windows X, your snake oil sounds incredible on my mediocre equipment. Joined Apr 27, Posts 1, Likes I think I found some notable improvements with Fidelizer software now after today test. Here's the result Align: I have finished my part now to prove my part now that I'm not doing something worth being accused for selling snake oil. Regards, Windows X. Joined Dec 28, Posts Likes I really don't see why you think this is proof of anything Joined Feb 3, Posts 3, Likes 2, Questionable results at best and certainly inaudible. If this isn't simply algorithm rounding errors, it still isn't proof that Fidelizer is making an improvement that any human on the planet could actually hear. You never mentioned the spec of the system you ran these test on nor, I believe the CPU loading during each phase of the test,. After reading this thread from start to this point, this is exactly what I thought would happen. X bends over backwards to justify his claims, just as you requested, and you say "Questionable reesults at best These can have high priority. If the product lessens the impact of spikes, then its useful. It is hard to devise tests for all possible cases. Also, just frequenting the Sound Science forum doesn't make you a scientist or entitle you to make demands on others. This forum has some of the most arrogant and insulting members in all of head-fi. Joined Jan 14, Posts Likes Are you sure you understood X's data? Yes, perhaps it did have an effect although it may have also been quantization , but the results in this specific scenario are in the range of dB, which is inaudible. Joined Feb 14, Posts 4, Likes 2, X bends over backwards to justify his claims We're talking about measuring changes in bit-perfect on pure software domain here. It's not something anyone can grasp like running software to read common specifications from DA conversion. I configure DiffMaker to make very detailed comparision with least rounding error as much as possible and made 3 reference samples of original data with added silence to measure the threshold of rounding error. It was around So we know the scope of changes for null result with rounding error calculated. Harry Manback Thank you. It's indeed a hard test since bits are bits believers don't cooperate nor ever state clear demand. I used to give up at some points because they believe only in measurements of audible range and that's impossible task for Fidelizer. Do you understand that we're working with bit-perfect on pure software environment? You can't expect anyone to measure this difficult subject for you in the first place. And I did this for you, with result to prove it and you finally accepted that Fidelizer make some measurable changes. Being audible or not, it's measurable. If you aren't satisfied with my method and results, try arranging up method for me to test for measurable and audible data that you can accept. I think I finally made some progress to get measurable data out from bit-perfect on pure software environment. The reason I spent time and effort into this experiment is to know it myself too. WindowsX is part of the group which contains "Everyone". Even if we accept that the difference he measured is due to Fidelizer, if he himself cannot attain any audible difference with Fidelizer this one test alone is enough to prove his claim of "everyone" is a lie! Are the measurements currently predicated on the inability to get a truly bit-perfect loopback recording? I don't pretend to fully understand the issue at the moment but it appears to be a complicated problem. There was however a particular audio interface mentioned in the thread that did produce a perfectly bit-perfect loopback recording. The inability to get a bit-perfect loopback would seem to be caused by a systematic software error rather than any jitter. After all, it's not like if a "1" on the sending end falls in the crack between two time slots on the receiving end it would be interpolated to two "0. In the limited testing I did I got the same slight volume decrease as Muriel Esteban got in 1a of post 10 in the above thread. Amplifying to the same amplitude and then comparing the input and output, of course, didn't yield anywhere near a null signal. But the error is very systematic and not at all indicative of a random noise process. Users who are viewing this thread. Total: 1 members: 0, guests: 1.