A Collection of Curious Things

Endogenic systems aren't removing the dysfunction that comes along with having a CDD, because CDDs and systems aren't the same, and being a system doesn't inherently come with experiencing dysfunction. Because it isn't how mental disorders work.

"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."

“The DSM-5 wording indicates that mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or impairment. The word ‘usually’ may be technically accurate, in that on rare occasions, a mental disorder is listed in DSM-5, and there is no ‘clinical criterion’. However, given that psychiatric symptoms are often on a continuum with normality, the clinical criterion is one key way of providing a relatively valid and reliable marker of underlying dysfunction, so lessening the risk of false positives and over-medicalization.”

“It can be boiled down to several categories. 1. DID and OSDD as defined by DSM-5 - which require distress and dysfunction. Neither of these require trauma by DSM-5 rules but there virtually always is trauma. 2. Other DSM-5 dissociative disorders. 3. People with parts and trauma but no distress or dysfunction. 4. People with parts but no trauma, and no distress or dysfunction. - Like everything in DSM-5 there are mild versions that don't meet full criteria and don't have distress or dysfunction. One of the problems in the discussion is that people often have fixed ideas and rules about 'how it has to be' - unfortunately for them, the real world doesn't always follow those rules.”

“The insistence of staying Plural even as at the end of therapy is something I've encountered throughout my career. More conservative leaders in my field insist that there's only one cure to DID and that's complete fusion and integration. The fact of the matter is that it's up to the client to decide how they want to be and how they define themselves. From my perspective, and that is in line with the DSM principles, one can have all the phenomenological manifestations of the DID, but if there’s a sense of well-being, internal communication, cooperation, awareness, exchange of information, and external functioning is intact, then it's just a different way of being. It's not a disorder.”

“It's when they are unable to meet their obligations in real life and are unable to advance their goals in life, when they are experiencing internal strife and conflict and are paralyzed and unable to conduct their lives effectively [that it’s a disorder]. That's in the functioning domain. That's one criteria, a very important criteria. Scholastic, academic, work, family relations, functioning and all that, if it's not impaired, then there's no problem. That's the objective criteria. And then the subjective criteria is distress. So if you're not bothered by multiplicity in the sense that you don't feel that you're being taken over against your will, if you're not losing time, if there's no depression and anxiety associated with this disorder, if some parts are sort of leaking distress to other parts. That subjective criteria is another important indication that one needs help. But in other situations where these two criteria are not met, a person can be completely dissociative in the sense that they are functioning as a system and still not meet even the DSM criteria. Because in the DSM, for almost each and every diagnostic entity there is a condition that it must impair functioning or create distress. And unless this condition is met, then there is no diagnosis.”

“There's a great need out there to identify those who have multiple worlds and identities to identify the other forms of multiplicity and dissociation out there, and to label and understand better the variance ranging from normal and adaptive to excessive and abnormal and distress producing, and develop ways to help those who need help and want help. That's where we're at now.”

"Another possibility is that multiplicity exists in a nonpathologic endogenous form in the general population. About 2% of people may be natural multiples who do not have dysfunctional posttraumatic MPD, They may simply have a highly dissociative psychic organization. If subjected to child abuse, these individuals would have developed clinical MPD with all its symptoms, self-destructiveness, and dysfunctional amnesia. The threshold for development of pathologic MPD in response to trauma is presumably low in such individuals, if they exist."

"DSM-III-R criteria function well in clinical populations to differentiate MPD from other diagnostic groups, however it appears that more complex criteria are required to differentiate pathologic MPD with numerous personality states, complicated amnesia barriers, and severe trauma histories from individuals with nonpathologic atraumatic multiplicity."

"The existence of mild, nonpathologic variants of MPD in the general population is consistent with the findings for all other forms of mental disorder. Simply having distinct personality states that feel subjectively like separate people may not in itself be a mental illness. This may be true even if the personality states have separate names and converse out loud with each other inside the person’s head. The DSM-II-R criteria for MPD do not make this distinction between psychiatric disorder and normal psychic organization. It is likely that the 14 individuals positive for MPD in the study have provided preliminary information about a heterogeneous group of people, some with disorders of varying etiology, and some with no psychiatric disorder."

They're not taking terms from those with CDDs, when the communities working together are responsible for most terms, and most other terms weren't intended for exclusive use.

"System" isn't a term exclusive to CDDs, nor was it a term made for CDDs. It was applied to them because of the original definition and usage of the word, I.e. 'assembly of related elements comprising a whole' and 'personality system'

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.2

-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.