A Collection of Curious Things

The Haunted Self

Apa Psychology Dictionary

Systems Psychology

Systems Theory

Systems Thinking

Complex Systems

Jung's theory of the Ego

Personality Systems Framework

And of course, Internal Family Systems

This is why, in medial literature, the term 'system' is also used for non-traumagenic and endogenic systems.

-Upfront discussions about clinician’s views of integration, specific requests for functional multiplicity as a treatment goal rather than integration, and very high numbers of alters and “sub-systems”, of which they are already aware and with whom they are able to communicate or interact with in a variety of ways − including internal relationships, where alters may date or even marry each other, raise families together (including birthing new alters and having pets). This group often has a very elaborately developed inner world with relationships rich in detail where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as awareness to where they do not have access and why.

-I define being plural first and foremost doxastically: a plural is a human being who explicitly believes that there are in fact multiple persons sharing their brain. I call this belief plural identity, though some further elements must be specified to give its precise intended meaning. (Note that I am offering my own account of what it is to be a plural; plurals themselves arguably use the term “plural” synonymously with the term “system,” which I define below.)

-Plurals often refer to the collection of headmates associated with one body or brain as a system, and I will sometimes use this language as well. (Headmates are therefore sometimes called “systemmates” instead.) Note that while I use the term “plural” to refer to a human being with a particular identity, the term “system” is slightly different, referring instead to the collection of headmates all associated with one particular plural.

-But plurals may also not meet diagnostic criteria because they no longer meet the amnesia criterion as the latter is framed, since multiple headmates may share their knowledge and experiences with each other (more on this below). Some plurals identify with the diagnosis to the extent that they believe that their system was produced by trauma—a major factor in the etiology of DID—but claim that they never strictly met diagnostic criteria.

-Importantly, there are also systems that don’t have their origin in trauma to begin with. Some systems are intentionally created through so‐called tulpamancy. Tulpamancy is a practice or set of practices undertaken with the intention of creating an autonomous sentient being “inside” (and of course using) one’s brain; beings created in this way are called tulpas, and the people who created them are called tulpamancers. 

-Then there are so‐called “natural” or “endogenic” systems. Some claim that they were just always multiple people, without ever having experienced childhood trauma of the sort that is generally believed to be the precipitating factor for DID and without having intentionally and effortfully created headmates in the way that tulpamancers do; other natural systems say that while they have experienced such trauma—just as have many singlets—they were already multiple by that time. Natural systems’ causal origins could perhaps just be some kind of neurobiological difference (or abnormality); alternatively, several systems I spoke to expressed the belief that authors may sometimes inadvertently create headmates in the process of vividly imagining fictional characters.

-Systems, then, can have one of at least two and possibly three causal origins (see Table 1.) Some are traumagenic, that is, caused by trauma and trauma‐induced dissociation; these are the systems most likely to meet diagnostic criteria for DID, especially Criterion B. Some are intentionally created; these are what I am calling tulpagenic systems. Finally, there may be “natural” systems, the product neither of intentional effort nor of trauma and trauma‐induced dissociation

-The choice of model simply being more intentional in the case of tulpagenic systems. Still, systems do appear to have (at least) two broadly different etiologies: trauma‐induced causal dissociation in the one case and in the other certain kinds of intentional imaginative and meditative practices.

-In terms of their internal system dynamics, tulpagenic and traumagenic systems tend to operate differently, with headmates in tulpagenic systems being much more aware of each other’s thoughts and experiences and actions than they are in traumagenic systems. This is natural, since trauma is one cause of dissociation. Nonetheless, when tulpamancy is successful, the tulpamancer experiences their tulpa or tulpas as being autonomous beings, just as occurs in traumagenic systems: so, although the tulpamancer will be aware of their tulpa’s (say) actions, they will feel as though they (the tulpamancer) are not the agent of those actions. Phenomenologically, then, all plurals seem to share something.

-It should be acknowledged that making the case for grouping some traumagenic and tulpagenic systems together on the basis of their explicit self‐identity risks creating the impression of greater harmony between those systems than in fact exists. It is easy to find, online, groups of traumagenic plurals that deny the reality of non‐traumagenic systems: from their standpoint, self‐identified natural or intentional (tulpagenic) systems are in fact either unwittingly traumagenic or else mere appropriators who are not genuine systems at all. Against them stand non‐traumagenic systems (and some allies) who decry their exclusion and accuse the former group of gatekeeping. 

-Some plurals however do seem to identify as systems spontaneously; indeed, the plural who is believed to have come up with the term “plural” to first describe themselves, as a system, supposedly did so in the 1980s, without having encountered other systems, to their knowledge, and without having heard of multiple personality disorder.

-Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not. A plural system is a collection of all the alters present. With some people these alters might come and go, whereas with others they are static and waiting to be discovered.

-Though the causes of some plural systems are unknown, psychologists and other mental health practitioners have reported some reasons common to many cases. Plurality may be deemed a traumagenic system, a spiritual system, or tulpamancy [etc.]

-How common are plural systems? Statistics show that about 1.5 percent of the global population is diagnosed with DID, a mental health disorder characterized by plurality. However, since plurality takes many forms, including spiritual systems and tulpamancy, it is difficult to ascertain just how common plural systems in general are.

-For people with multiplicity, it is thought that the level of separation is less pronounced, and that people are more aware of the system as a whole, which involves having increased communication between selves. Often, people presenting with such experiences are given a diagnosis of OSDD which can feel incredibly invalidating because of predominant focus of DID; discussions online have involved people being told that they are not “multiple enough” or are told that they are faking their experiences as they do not fit wholly into clinical understanding.

-Self-concept clarity (the degree to which an individual feels a coherent and stable sense of themselves) is influenced by personal understandings of the self – in this review participants had a clear sense of self as both an individual and member of a wider bodily system which is not present in those diagnosed with a clinical disorder. The value added of this review highlights currently minimised voices of people who live well with dissociative experiences, who feel more aligned to a holistic explanation of the self as opposed to clinical criteria.

-For example, ‘brain working best with more than one’ encompassed the understanding that people viewed their experiences positively, and felt they functioned better on behalf of being within a multiple system than they would if they were a singular person. ‘Never feeling alone’ was also used as an in-vivo code to express the sense of relationships internally, and how people felt supported by others in the system.

-As discussed in Chapter Two, people experiencing multiplicity often refer to themselves as systems. A system encompasses multiple selves who each have individual thoughts, preferences and behaviours. In light of this, within quotations, some responses discussed their experiences of being a member of a system. Overarching narratives often resulted in respondents discussing their individual perspective of being a system member, as opposed to speaking on behalf of the system as a whole.

-‘A duality of selves’ represents participants’ navigation of their inner world which encompasses both themselves as an individual and a member of a larger bodily system, involving multiple selves sharing one body. Opposing research into clinical experiences, all respondents to this research understood that they shared their body with other selves, and had communication with others internally. As will be discussed in depth later in this chapter, the level of awareness and communication internally resulted in specific selves being interviewed – this was often the result of conversations and decision making internally.

-The overarching narrative that emerged encompassed the understanding that multiples navigate their body between being individual selves, and being part of a collective, or system. The interconnectedness of different selves opposes the complete separation that often exists within literature focusing on DID. The use of metaphors illustrates respondent’s struggle to articulate their experiences, potentially because of societal norms which rarely address such complexity.

-Multiplicity experiences ‘just happening to develop’ was a common narrative, often noted by participants as being “endogenic multiplicity”, as opposed to “traumagenic multiplicity” which the community often refer to those whose experiences have a traumatic origin. Endogenic in this context describes people’s experiences which do not have a basis in trauma. This is often used as a catch-all term to describe the various other specific reasons which are not focused on trauma. Often within online discussions, this terminology is used to assign people to groups – either a traumagenic or endogenic system. As will be discussed in Chapter 7, this interpersonal grouping and ensuing gatekeeping of experiences can be damaging for some systems, particularly people who are just starting to understand their experiences.

-Ribáry et al. suggests the experience of multiplicity is best understood on a continuum between ‘identity disturbance’ and ‘dissociative identity disorder (DID)’. Ribáry and colleagues found most people who operated as ‘systems’ of selves functioned fairly well in day-to-day life, although recognised much more research is needed.

-Respondents shared various positive terms which they prefer, including ‘system’, ‘headmate’, ‘system members’, and ‘plurals’. Utilising preferred language, as is true with other areas of mental health research and practice, allows the individual to feel supported, included and visible. Along with allowing experts by experience to choose their preferred language to discuss their experiences, allowing headmates to be addressed using their chosen pronouns and names was discussed by many people during the consultation. These may be different for each headmate, or the system may have a system name which they wish to use which incorporates all within the body. Ensuring inclusive, non-ableist language is utilised humanises and normalises the experiences, which is the main hope for many young people in the multiplicity community. 

-Conversely, while systems experiencing multiplicity often report the presence of two or more selves sharing one body, multiplicity does not tend to incorporate amnesia, distress due to a lack of integration of thoughts or feelings, or impairment in functioning. People aligning with the non-clinical explanation of multiplicity indicate their ability to live well in relation to memory, perception of the environment and consciousness, supporting the notion of a continuum of experiences.

-There is particularly scarce research with young people who identify as multiple outside of a diagnostic conceptualisation of what being multiple means for the individual system (the selves residing within the body), which means we also miss a developmental perspective on the process of “becoming” oneself, which may include a greater or lesser sense of multiplicity for some young people.

-Overall, people with experiences of multiplicity are aware of being an individual self, as well as being a member of a wider system who share one body. There is often shared memory space, communication between selves, and structures for navigating the external world. This opposes clinical experiences where such experiences are often disrupted.

-Findings were consistent with preliminary research exploring the experience of emerging multiplicity as its own distinct experience, outside the lens of clinical criteria. This included the understanding that those who identify as multiple can, and often do, live well as a member of a system comprising of multiple selves. Participants discussed having awareness of other system members internally, the importance of developing positive communication between selves, and the utility of sharing the body with members who wish to front. 

 -Multiplicity experiences are phenomenologically distinct from clinical dissociative experiences and require under-standing of how each system operates to inform language use and support

-Holistic, person/system-centred therapeutic support can create a reflective space in which the system can make choices as to how to live well, without judgement or stigma. People and systems with lived experience of multiplicity explain their multiplicity as life-enhancing and positive.

-Multiplicity has been defined as the experience of having two or more separate selves within one body, with the body’s behaviour being controlled by one-self at any one time. Those who experience multiplicity often refer to themselves as multiples or systems (a system of separate selves. The separate selves within the system, otherwise known as ‘alters’, ‘parts’ or 'headmates’, usually have differing ages, genders, feelings, thoughts and memories. Henceforth, we shall refer to people with DID or multiplicity as ‘systems’ to recognise a more inclusive approach to language for people identifying as multiple.

-However, many people with multiplicity function well in terms of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment, and appreciate the value of their multiple selves as a coping response to adversity and relational traumas. The absence of distress experienced by systems identifying as multiple may suggest that DID and multiplicity vary in experience, and the dominance of DID in research highlights a fundamental limitation in the understanding of multiplicity.

-Very little has been published about the intersection of living as both transgender and a plural system (more than one person sharing a body).

-Plurality is a newer, more inclusive term that our study uses to describe the broad range of experiences of having more than one person or entity (“headmates” or “alters”) sharing one body. It has been used in the scientific literature as well as the self-advocacy community and is an addition to the related terminology of dissociation and multiplicity. The term system is often used to describe a collection of these entities sharing the body.

-Plural identity is a self-reported identity, not a specific clinical diagnosis. Some, but not all, plural people dissociate, or have a psychiatric diagnosis of dissociation such as dissociative identity disorder (DID), or other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD). There is a diversity of experiences within plurals/systems, such that members of a system may have different gender identities and salience of gender; ages/experience of age; perceived internal appearances; varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts; and complex interrelationships with other system members.

-Yarbrough observed that many plural systems did not experience distress from the existence of other internal headmates, and recommended shared decision making among headmates when pursuing treatment. 

-The authors recognize that dissociation can be both adaptive and problematic. However, this study adopted a non-pathological approach to plural experience, in order to better understand systems’ authentic experiences. In other areas such as sexual orientation and gender identity, movement toward non-pathological approaches have led to more affirming care. We used the language recognized as affirming at the time of the study.

-When alters take control of the body, they can be described as ‘fronting,’ and exchange control in a process termed ‘switching’. The term ‘system’ describes the collection of these entities sharing a body, while the term ‘system member’ is a neutral term, equivalent to ‘alter,’ which describes one individual entity within a plural body. Members of a system may have unique experiences of gender and salience of gender, perceived internal appearance, age or experiences of age, varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts. 

-The present study uses the term ‘plurality,’ which emerged from the advocacy community of multiples, and recently has been incorporated into the scientific literature. This newer, more inclusive term describes a broad range of pathological and non-pathological multiplicity, denoting those who have more than one person or entity sharing one body as a ‘plural system.’. While the term ‘plural’ includes those in clinical distress and diagnosed with a dissociative disorder (DID or OSDD), authors have noted that many identifying with plurality found ways to live well with dissociation or did not experience distress from plural experiences.

-Participants described their internal entities using words such as alters, headmates, system mates, system members, brainmates, entities, and spirits. The authors use the term ‘system members’ in this report, as it is a neutral term regarding the pathologization of plurality used by various groups within DID, plural, and multiple communities. The reported number of system members ranged from four to unlimited. Language used to describe plurality included system, plural, DID (dissociative identity disorder), OSDD (other specified dissociative disorder), multiplicity, polyfragmented and circle, with plural the most commonly used.

-People who identify as plural have multiple conscious system members within a body, all with their own wants, needs, and opinions. Any group of external people are certain to encounter conflict at some point; similarly, several entities in a body are bound to eventually have incompatible desires about what to do with a limited amount of time and a shared body

-Given the diversity of plural experiences, the process to reach consensus was unique for each system. For some participants, the process was brief and easy, while others described it as an intensive or continuous process. When faced with difficult decisions, participants held multiple meetings between system members. These meetings were an intentionally created space where conflicting opinions and experiences could be talked through between system members. Some participant systems held fluid, free-form discussions, while others held structured meetings where certain system members assumed specific roles to facilitate discussions.

-Some participants held a shared communal identity when the system as a whole was situated within an identity group, such as ‘transgender’ or ‘queer.’ This sense of shared identity was organically experienced within the system, and included all system members while simultaneously leaving room for their individual identities

-Clinicians can ask whether there are any further areas to explore or discussions to be held between members which would help the system come to an equitable agreement regarding transition. While they have similarities, no plural system is exactly alike. As internal dynamics, language use, experiences of gender dysphoria, and transition outcomes vary from system to system, care must be tailored to their specific experiences and treatment goals.

-Among them are people who identify not as one whole self, but as a system of plural personalities, often labeled as dissociative identity disorder (DID).

-Among them are people who consider themselves not as one whole integrated personality, but as a system of multiple personalities. Often labeled with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) or OSDD (Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder), these new social media creators contribute their own voices to an extensive network of YouTube channels, which is itself part of a network of online groups that have contributed to the emergence of a plural community and a plural culture.1 In 2018, more than 23,000 users of various global online platforms voted for the umbrella term plurals as a more inclusive term for all kinds of experiences of plural identities.

-The psychiatric literature marks the following elements as extreme: a high number of alters with very different or dramatic identities (who all know each other), subsystems within the system, fictional personalities and plurals who do not consider themselves disordered or do not wish to integrate into one personality. 

-Plurality is thus a subset of multiplicity defined primarily by one’s personal and explicit belief that he is but one of ‘a co-embodied group of people’ manifesting within a single human being; such a collectivity is, within the plural community, commonly called a ‘system’. 

-In marked contrast, those resident in plural systems are most often co-aware, commonly report constructive internal communication, and may even concurrently share agentic control of the body. Furthermore, the system’s ‘original’ personality, where present is not eclipsed by its other members, but partakes in the system alongside them. While a level of transience can exist in plural systems, the experience of plurality is just as often long-term, echoing a main point of distinction between spirit possession and dissociative identity disorder.

-Countering the clinical view, others have decried what they allege are attempts at the medicalization of plurality. This position is well represented within the plural community, where many ‘endogenic’ systems refute clinical expectations of underlying trauma. Further, even among trauma-based systems, many experience no distress or impairment on account of their plurality, and thus neither consider themselves to be disordered, nor see integration as a therapeutic goal.

-As with its superordinate phenomenon of multiplicity, plurality exists on a continuum, and the ways it manifests in any given system are diverse. In some cases, control over the body, and thus the system’s presentation to the outside world, is shared among some or all members, with different members assuming that control, or ‘fronting,’ at any given time. In others, a single ‘host’ may both control and identify with the body, while subsidiary members - though personally and mentally autonomous - do not, and indeed may not even regard the system’s physical body as ‘theirs’. The ages, genders, and other personal characteristics of those cohabiting in a given body will vary, as will their number, with some systems even reporting multiple thousands of members. The degree to which consciousness is shared within a system also varies, ranging from intermittent (or even persistent) co-consciousness to common access to memory and interpersonal (but intra-system) communication. Opposing clinical expectations of dissociative identity disorder, amnesia is rare, and persons in a plural system are usually naturally aware of one another, possessing a sense of self both as an individual and as a member of a shared bodily system.

-While the academic study of plurality is yet only in its infancy, it shall be greatly benefited by learning from the history and trajectory of transgender studies, and adopting a paradigm of respect for and acceptance of the lived experiences of plural systems that fosters a reciprocal trust between those systems, clinicians, and researchers. One does not need to believe the personhood claims of the individual members of plural systems to accept that they subjectively experience themselves as people. It may well turn out that, as the Dawkinses quote Douglas Hofstadter in surmising, ‘a person is a point of view.’

-It does not, of course, replace these models, and they may remain preferable to members of plural systems who are partial to a secular, psychological view of their experiences. Nevertheless, it remains the case that many who experience plurality are less concerned by the particulars of its origins than by living well as a plural system.

-Survey participants were confirmed to be practitioners of tulpamancy by answering the question, “Does your system practice tulpamancy and/or have a tulpa?” with the option yes and no. Respondents who answered “no” skipped the subsequent questions and were directed to the end of the survey. Respondents who answered “yes” were directed to more questions inquiring their specific practices and experiences with tulpas.

-To investigate the effect of meditative practices often performed alongside tulpamancy, the survey asks: “Please select all the techniques that are/ have been used by your system for tulpamancy”, with meditation and hypnosis being among the possible responses.

-The notion of tulpas being intimate, trustworthy companions can also explain the association between tulpas and improvements in mental health. An overwhelming majority of tulpamancers develop strong and intimate bonds with their systemmates. Hosts consistently describe how their tulpas keep their best interests in mind and take steps to alleviate any ailments, mental or physical, that the host may have in their life. If a disorder is causing distress and one’s tulpa happens to be independent from it (as they are, to some degree, in 85% of cases), then we would expect to see what we already observe: tulpas helping their host cope with mental illness.

-There are reports of tulpas alleviating the desire to perform irrational routines in individuals diagnosed with OCD, and others claim that their tulpas innovated workarounds for their dyslexia. A system with DID even detailed how making a tulpa improved their functioning and ability to work together because the tulpa was unaffected by amnesia and could communicate otherwise unattainable information between alters.

Besides that, you also need to take into account:

- Spiritual practices aren't the same as having a religion, nor do you need to be part of any culture to have a spiritual experience

- 'Spirits communicate to you' is only one type of spiritual experience - there is a massive range of multiplicity-adjacent spiritual experiences outside of 'spirit communication', including many different experiences of possession, which is recognised as being similar to experiences in CDDs

- You're trying to tell others who may be part of an entirely different culture than you, that they can't choose how to identify themself, based on Western-centric ideas of the self. In many places, the self being multiple is just a normal part of life.

- You don't need to share the same spiritual beliefs as another in order to respect them. And speaking of 'alters':

Authors of The Haunted Self, the current theory of structural dissociation, recognise that 'division of personality' (what they call alters) exists in non-pathalogical forms. Whether you personally believe it or not doesn't change the recognition of these experiences - there is a reason, after all, why mental disorders include a cultural/spiritual exclusion criteria.

"Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality."

For some related information,

"Because the manifestation of different identities is common to both mediumship and DID, it is surprising that there are so few actual empirical studies evaluating this issue with validated clinical questionnaires. [] Mediums and DID patients, although exhibiting some of the same dissociative experiences, would differ in the pathologic expression of dissociation, with DID patients exhibiting greater dysfunctionality and psychopathology. [] Our data suggests that Brazilian mediumship differs in important ways from DID, besides the fact that they share sharp identity discontinuities."

"The Watkinses recognized that ego-states were similar in content to Hilgard's hidden observers and also to the alters found in their MPD patients. In one study, wrote Helen: "when Hilgard's 'hidden observers' were activated in normal college students as hypnotic subjects, further inquiry into their nature and content elicited organized ego-states. We... consider that hidden observers and ego-states are the same class of phenomena. They represent cognitive structural systems that are covert, but are organized segments of personality, often similar in content to true, overt multiple personalities. The Watkinses, however, noted a clear distinction between the ego- states found in normal people and the alters in their MPD patients. Ego-states did not "take over" their hosts entirely because, as the Watkinses put it, the boundaries between them were permeable. Instead of being entirely cut off from each other, they shared memories and acknowledged each other's existence. [] This book is not for or about people with MPD-it is about the normal multiplicity common to us all. But understanding a little about that extreme form of multiplicity may help us to understand our own selves, because although the behavior of people with this condition seems bizarre, they are probably not as different from the rest of us as we like to believe.”

"In cross-cultural anthropological studies involving social observations in Pakistan and narrative analysis in Sri Lanka, formations of multiple selves have been observed and reported. In fact, Ewing contents that the multiple self concept is more acceptable to anthropologists because the Western concept of self as a cohesive, bounded, and autonomous structure is ethnocentric, and fails to hold up under direct observation in other cultures. [] Another source of information dealing with personality multiplicities comes from clinical psychology. Since Prince described a patient who came to him in 1898 with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have collected a great deal of information about the condition. At present, there is little doubt among clinicians that personality multiplicities exist, at least within clients exhibiting MPD, and increasingly multiplicities are being recognised in other contexts as well. Although the present study centers on the existence of multiplicities within the normal population rather than those exhibiting pathology, there is obviously a certain degree of overlap between the two, and the clinical area provides information relevant to the evaluation of personality multiplicities in general.”

“To be possessed means to be out of control or, within some religions, to have an entity of a malignant nature taking control of one's body and actions. For the modern mind, possession is frightening because it is associated with a discontinuity in identity/personality, and alterations in consciousness and behavior. Nevertheless, possession experiences are widely reported across cultures, and those possessed are often regarded as a positive channel for various spiritual agents, such as deceased humans (in Spiritism and Spiritualism), nature deities or godlike beings (in Afro-American religions), or the Holy Spirit (in Evangelical Pentecostal churches and the Charismatic renewal movement of Roman Catholicism).”

“In Canada, for example, where possession and trance experiences are not broadly accepted cultural or religious practices, 32% of individuals from a large sample reported having experienced them at least once, and 19% reported having experienced them between 10 and 50 times in their lives. Other research from general and clinical (DID) populations, conducted in the United States and Turkey suggests that possession is not a culture-bound phenomenon. Thus, cases such as Dona Sara’s are likely to occur elsewhere. Future revisions of the DSM–5 need to include a more sophisticated framework that portrays these experiences as universal rather than culture or religious bound. This would be substantiated by what is known about variations of these experiences at not only the cultural level but the level of individual differences, including gender and personality trait.”

Outside of the mentioned cultural/spiritual multiplicity, you can also find alters under these med articles, in use for non-traumagenic systems. Though it's important to note, most don't actually use 'alter', and instead use 'headmate'

"The third group that may be less familiar to clinicians, includes those identifying as Plural, but not considering themselves “disordered”. This group may include those with philosophical or spiritual practices that lend to an experience of multiplicity but do not consider themselves traumatized by this, as well as those who have chosen functional multiplicity as a goal for treatment rather than integration – and who do not consider themselves “disordered” because they are functioning and not distressed by symptoms. [] As the online community collaborated across platforms to develop the survey for the PPWC, other more politically correct terms were agreed upon during the voting process prior to the survey. Specifically, the need was to identify terms for certain types of alters (“parts”) that are frequently misunderstood in the clinical setting. One type of alter that needed a more appropriate term was what clinical trainings and presentations often refer to as “animal alters” or “alien alters”. The Plural community decided that it was more appropriate to call these “non-human alters” to be more inclusive, decrease stigma, and make fewer assumptions about them."

"I define being plural first and foremost doxastically: a plural is a human being who explicitly believes that there are in fact multiple persons sharing their brain. I call this belief plural identity, though some further elements must be specified to give its precise intended meaning. [] It is pragmatically necessary to have a term to refer to the different beings that a plural believes are sharing their brain. The clinical term for such beings in someone with DID would be “alters,” but plurals themselves often dislike this term for being “dehumanizing” (de‐personalizing). A commonly used alternative is the term “headmates” - like “housemates,” except sharing a head instead of a house. (The term “head” here is helpfully neutral between whether headmates are believed to share or experienced as sharing a brain, a skull, or perhaps even a mind in some way.) I will use the term “headmates” myself, although without meaning to beg the question of whether headmates are entities, as the term suggests, or whether they are instead more property‐like. Plurals often refer to the collection of headmates associated with one body or brain as a system, and I will sometimes use this language as well. (Headmates are therefore sometimes called “systemmates” instead.)"

"Plurality is a more patient-centered approach to what has historically been referred to as dissociative identities. This is not the same as the DSM-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not. A plural system is a collection of all the alters present. With some people these alters might come and go, whereas with others they are static and waiting to be discovered."

"A variety of language has been used. For the most part, this is the result of the current literature base, and participant’s own words. However, it should be noted that all terms currently used to explain multiplicity are not standardised across the whole community of people experiencing multiplicity. Currently there is an active community of people on social media who discuss and share experiences. Medicalised language such as ‘alter’ or ‘part’ will not be used unless included within direct quotations. More inclusive language such as ‘headmate’, ‘self’, ‘plurality’, and ‘multiplicity’ are used to describe the experience. It is important to note that while these terms are used within this research, the language used within the community and services are individualistic and should be preference led."

"Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling ‘left out of the conversation’ and ‘unable to access support’ or resources. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured. [] By ensuring accurate language is used for the various experiences, it will become clear how varied individuals’ experiences are, and thus the support available can be tailored and improved. The medicalised language used to describe multiplicity was said to be a barrier to accessing support and information for many people. While traditional language such as ‘parts’ or ‘alters’ may be beneficial or appropriate choices within specific groups such as adult peer-support services, young people who responded to the consultation found them to be non-inclusive and ingrained within medical assumptions which do not reflect their experiences. They also discussed feeling a stigma attached to this language, echoed within the media, which is harmful to people with experiences of multiplicity. [] Respondents shared various positive terms which they prefer, including ‘system’, ‘headmate’, ‘system members’, and ‘plurals’. Utilising preferred language, as is true with other areas of mental health research and practice, allows the individual to feel supported, included and visible."

"Multiplicity has been defined as the experience of having two or more separate selves within one body, with the body’s behaviour being controlled by one-self at any one time. Those who experience multiplicity often refer to themselves as multiples or systems (a system of separate selves). The separate selves within the system, otherwise known as ‘alters’, ‘parts’ or 'headmates’, usually have differing ages, genders, feelings, thoughts and memories. Henceforth, we shall refer to people with DID or multiplicity as ‘systems’ to recognise a more inclusive approach to language for people identifying as multiple."

"Plurality is a newer, more inclusive term that our study uses to describe the broad range of experiences of having more than one person or entity (“headmates” or “alters”) sharing one body. It has been used in the scientific literature as well as the self-advocacy community and is an addition to the related terminology of dissociation and multiplicity. The term system is often used to describe a collection of these entities sharing the body."

^revent post somebody made about the "endogenic systems are a hate group" claim

^med article that partly covers the same thing and some plural history

^examples of non-pathalogical plurality outside of Tumblr (rest of the site has some good opinion/experience articles, too)

^personal experiences with medical descriptions of endogenic plurality

Where and when 'plural' started becoming popular

^where endogenic and traumagenic came from

CambrianCrew's experiences of being plural

^community study on plurality and dissociation

A lot of plural community articles with some med stuff

Collection of plural articles

Sarah K Reece's articles on multiplicity

Variety of essays, guides, and articles on plurality

Short list of articles about the effects of fakeclaiming

Site with a long list of med articles, and explanations/experiences

Endogenic system website

Dissociative Initiative's Multiplicity

Discussion around transmeds vs sysmeds

Another ^

The cultural appropriation argument on Tulpamancy

The Tulpanomicon, centre of Tulpamancy info

Med article covering some experiences of multiplicity, haven't personally read through it but it's regularly referenced

Some other places to look for info would be: (have links to all of these in the document)

(not saying these are the same as endogenic systems! but a lot are recognised as forms of non-traumagenic multiplicity in some way)

The multiple selves theory (subpersonalities, multiple selves, self-states, polypsychism, IFS, etc.).

Mediumship, possession, hypnosis, two-spirit, practices with multiple souls, etc.

The 'Illusion of Independant Agency'.

The 'Hearing Voices Movement'.

The 'Problem of Other Minds'

Tulpamancy (though often recognised as falling under endogenic systems), soulbonds, and Daemonism.

What defines a mental disorder, and what defines delusions

We also recommend (if you've been hearing about it), since this is a recent topic, looking up sociocognitive vs sociocultural