you say alot that endogenic DID isnt possible but theres no proof endogenic DID systems cant exist cuz the theory of structural dissociation is only a theory and hasnt even been proven
Syscourse is going to be the death of me
Okay. Yes, the theory of structural dissociation is a theory- but it's a psychological/scientific theory . Those theories differ from your average joe making an educated guess In psychology ; a theory is something observable, testable, and must explain some kind of behavior and why it occurs . It's similar to scientific theories that explain why something occurs in the world , such as the theory of evolution. We know evolution occurs, it's observable and testable, it's been researched and documented for years but it's still a scientific theory . We know the theory of structural dissociation occurs because it's also observable, testable, and been researched and documented
So the theory of structural dissociation being a theory doesn't make it uncredible at all ... BUT let's say it did
In the hypothetical situation that a psychological theory isn't credible evidence of something, what makes endogenic DID any more credible? What makes something backed by no research something true , factual , and more reliable than something that has a scientific/psychological theory behind it ? If there's no proof of something, no one is obligated to trust it . Something that hasn't been observed , such as the most complex form of PTSD (DID) existing without any PTSD , isn't something that should be treated as a factual claim in any scenario . If there's no proof, it's nothing more than a personal guess that no one should or has to believe
This is talking about endogenic DID specifically . Don't argue if you're going to bring up something unrelated to "endogenic DID"
