DID research blog

A common miscommunication I've seen inside and outside OEA spaces is the comparison of conditioning and programming. This is only made further complicated by the fact they exist on a similar scale, where not all conditioning is programming, but all programming is conditioning. This post serves to point out the differences between the two. Any sources may contain triggering content.

Not even scientific, I want peer reviewed, replicated studies. Not something that looks scientific but isn’t.

- refusing to form relationships, especially if local, because of the fear that the new person knows or is affiliated with your abuser(s).

- being able to identify exactly what you are feeling, but unable to express the emotion. happy but can’t smile. sad but can’t cry. angry but can’t scream. scared but you’re not shaking.

- letting people hurt you, or hurting yourself, because you enjoy it. not even thinking you deserve it. you genuinely enjoy being hurt, because it’s all you’ve known.

- avoiding certain buildings, rooms, parks, roads, and places because they feel vaguely familiar, but you don’t know why.

- on the contrary, driving straight to those places for the same reason. you don’t know why, but you have a connection to this place, and you have to go.

- always assuming the worst out of loved ones. your partner forgot to text you before they left? they hate you and are plotting how to leave for good. friend gave you a gift? they’re testing your reaction to see if you really like them.

- struggling with hygiene. not because you deserve to not be taken care of, but because you don’t know how to take care of yourself. you don’t know how to brush your teeth. you don’t know how often to change clothes.

- not knowing the difference between good and bad smells. you’re sweaty and people keep looking at you funny? it’s fine, it’s not that strong. someone says your clothes smell dirty? they were cleaned a week ago, so they’re fine.

- finding people who are positive or happy either weird or stupid. i hate that girl, she’s too bubbly. that guy smiles too much. they’re too nice to me, they probably don’t even know what it’s like to suffer.

We often describe our working memory as stacks of Swiss cheese. We always have several ppl coconscious and any of them can briefly step into front for any amount of time. Each alters memory is a slice of Swiss cheese with holes in it. Each alters slice is a little different based on how close to front they were during the time we're trying to remember. When they are all stacked on top of each other some holes get "filled" by the memory from a nearby alter who shares with the fronter. But some of the holes line up and no one nearby knows what happened. This only applies during times of minimal stress and for shorter periods like a few days or less.

the idea that all parts need names to be considered "fully elaborate parts" is a dated one, and one that I frequently see individuals much earlier on in their recovery perpetuating.

if your parts have their own names, that's great. if you named your parts and your parts are comfortable with that, that's also great. plenty of people, however, do not have parts with names, or only some of their parts have names. this does not have to do with whether or not that part is "elaborated enough" to be a part -- a name does not make up an entire identity, it is only one facet of an identity.

AKA having multiple systems or parts within parts

In this post, we're going to be talking about subsystems! There is a lot of misinfo online over this. Some people doubt the existence of subsystems or they think it's something incredibly rare.

Unfortunately, this misinfo can lead to the harassment of people with this very real experience. Here are a few examples of false claims about subsystems I've seen by doing a quick search: source.

First off, what IS a subsystem?

In complex dissociative disorders like DID, a "subsystem" often refers to alters within a system that are grouped together in a specific way. Commonly (but not always), they are grouped together because they hold onto similar trauma memories. Subsystems can look many different ways, such as appearing like having layers or multiple systems inside of oneself, alters that contain their own alters, or a cluster of parts that act together as one alter.

Subsystems are a real and common experience.

To quote clinical psychologist Howell (2011) from her book, page 57, source:

"The organization of self-states is often imagined in three-dimensional space. The parts are often layered behind one another, with those representing deeper trauma behind deeper layers of identity states (Kluft, 1993, 2000, 2009). Frequently, they are grouped or clustered together (Fine, 1993), for example, with child parts of approximately the same age together. Or, parts may be contained within another part."

Subsystems have been described in various clinical literature. Here are a few examples: source. Trigger warning ⚠ for these examples because most include descriptions of childhood sexual abuse.

It's important to note that the concept of having a system (or subsystems) of parts is not exclusive to complex dissociative disorders. You may also hear about similar experiences with subsystems in other parts-based frameworks, like in other trauma-based conditions, certain treatment practices like IFS, and non-disordered plurality. If you're curious, I encourage you to do your own research into that!

Says who?!

The idea that people with dissociative identity disorder (DID) can't be aware of their symptoms until they're diagnosed... This is a huge myth about DID and similar experiences; one that has been debunked again and again by experts. Yet it remains! Here are a few examples of this misconception being spread around online: source.

People with DID can be, and often are, aware of their DID symptoms before ever speaking to a clinician.

Where is the proof? Khan (2024) states that, while it's normal for dissociative people to not realize the full extent of their symptoms, trauma, or alters, they can still become aware of any of these things at any point. Source. Dell (2006) actually considers the awareness of alters before diagnosis to be a "common occurrence in DID" which has been widely documented in studies. Multiple diagnostic screening tools inquire about awareness of alters for this reason. Source.

Additionally, alters can have varying degrees of awareness of each other and their symptoms. To quote Howell (2011) from her book, on pages 3-4: Source.

"Different dissociative parts may or may not have knowledge of the affects, behaviors, histories, motives, and thoughts of other parts. How coconscious patients are also varies—that is, the extent to which they have knowledge of and are privy to the thoughts, history, and affairs of the other parts varies. Often, the part of the self that is in executive control is unaware of the thoughts and activities of other parts (often called one-way amnesia). However, this is a tricky topic to try to make clear. For example, coconsciousness may be minimal before beginning psychotherapy for DID but tends to increase considerably in the course of appropriate psychotherapeutic work. Although parts other than the part who is most often in executive control (often called the “host”) are more likely to know of each other and of the host, this is not always the case and is not always the same for different parts of the same patient. Some parts may be unknown by many of the others. The dissociative structure of each patient is different."

Even in the case someone has no memory of their symptoms, they can be made aware through external evidence such as finding purchases or notes that other alters made, police reports confirming traumatic events, someone pointing out their dissociation, etc.

Now let’s talk about something that I feel goes frequently unrecognized: becoming aware of symptoms is often a positive thing! For many people, recognizing their own symptoms is the first step to seeking help for them. As mental health awareness and access to useful information increases, we will likely see an uptick in people with DID developing more awareness of their symptoms and getting help sooner. That’s incredibly positive!

Finally, a small note about diagnosis... Diagnosis is its own loaded topic for a different day. However, I want to point out that people diagnosed with DID still had the DID before their diagnosis. The symptoms were still there, whether they were aware of it or not.

Furthermore, not everyone with DID can obtain a diagnosis or even wants one. There are a myriad of potential reasons for that and I encourage you to do your own research on it. These articles can be a good starting point: source, source, source.

HELLO ANON!!! It's not mean at all and I'm very happy you're asking for sources! This is gonna be a bit long as its a timeline and its sources.

1989–1994: Early CDD Newsletters, Forums, and Online Communities

1989: Many Voices

Many Voices was established in 1989 as the first newsletter created specifically for people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Although it remains available online today, it is no longer actively updated.

1991: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery (ASAR)

The Usenet group alt.sexual.abuse.recovery was created in 1991. It became home to a large community of CDD systems.

1994: ASARian Incorporated

In 1994, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery evolved into ASARian Incorporated. ASARian provided peer support, web hosting, unix shell accounts, and resources for people with DID/MPD

1994: alt.support.dissociation

Also in 1994, the Usenet group alt.support.dissociation was created. It would go on to become the longest-running support group for people with dissociative disorders. The website remains active, but the last post was made in 2024 as Usenet had declined in its own usage.

1995–1997: Astraea's Web and the Emergence of Non-Disordered Plurality

Astraea's Website

In 1995, Astraea launched what is considered the first website dedicated to discussing non-disordered plurality. This was the first known website to explicitly address plurality outside of a clinical or disorder-based framework.

Coining of Natural Multiplicity

Around 1996, Astraea introduced the term natural multiplicity. The concept proposed that having multiple personalities was not inherently disordered. Instead, it was framed as a naturally occurring phenomenon that could arise spontaneously, rather than solely through trauma or dissociation. You can find the archive here.

Criticism of Astraea's Web

While initially appealing to some, Astraea's work has been heavily criticized. Critics argue that its sources and rhetoric reflect of extreme ableism, saneism, and dangerous ideological positions that have caused lasting harm There have also been highly credible claims of plagiarism, misattribution, and strong anti-psychiatry bias. Every source is here, here, here, and here

Astraea's Web is widely regarded as the starting point of what would later become the endogenic community.

1996–1999: The Development of Mid-Continuum

Sometime in 1996, an early internet plural named Vickis coined the term mid-continuum. The label quickly gained popularity among both dissociative and non-dissociative plural people.

Mid-continuum was rooted in the dissociative continuum model developed by Braun in 1988. Braun's model conceptualized dissociation as existing on a spectrum ranging from: normal experiences (such as daydreaming or zoning out) to polyfragmented DID at the far end. By 1997 and earlier, many DID-focused websites—including Astraea's Web—were sharing and discussing this model. Archive of article by Joan A. Turkus, M.D. (1997)

Proof that this article was shared on Astraea’s Web.

What Mid-Continuum Meant

1. It Was Based on a Psychological Model

Many people in the dissociative community identified with Braun's dissociative continuum. Vickis created the term for individuals who felt they fell somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. The label was referred to as 'mid-continuum dissociation' or simply mid-continuum for short. People using the label were often called mid-continuum dissociatives. Vickis later created a webpage devoted to the concept called The Wonderful World of the MidContinuum.

2. It Was Created for Dissociative People

In 1997, Vickis announced the new website on alt.support.dissociation. In that announcement, mid-continuum was explicitly described as a label for dissociative people who did not meet all criteria for DID. On the website, Vickis explained that mid-continuum applied to people who experienced dissociated parts, fell somewhere in the middle of Braun's dissociative continuum—This included experiences ranging from different roles in different situations, inner children, ego states, parts or fragments that did not feel like whole people, and having some, but not all, diagnostic criteria for DID.

A quote from the homepage:

“Everyone dissociates. At one end of the dissociative continuum is ‘normal’ or ‘common’ dissociation that nearly everyone engages in[…] At the other end are the behaviors that characterize ‘classical’ multiples, who may have large numbers of very distinct insiders with little internal communication, serious difficulties with time loss, amnesia, and so on.

Between these two extremes, there is a lot of gray. Ranging from having different ‘roles’ that you live out in different situations, to having an ‘inner child’ or ‘inner children’ with varying degrees of separateness, to having ‘ego states,’ ‘parts’ or ‘fragments’ that don’t seem to be whole people, to having some but not all of the diagnostic criteria for what is now known as DID[…]”

  Message Archive

Mid-Continuum Website Archive

3. It Was Created Out of Respect for People with DID

At the time, DID was still commonly referred to as MPD or simply multiplicity within online dissociative communities. Vickis and others believed it would be disrespectful to call themselves multiple if they did not have DID. They felt that doing so could minimize the struggles of people with DID. This was a major reason for creating the mid-continuum label. Vickis specifically noted that they did not experience time loss, had never experienced amnesia in that way, did not have communication barriers between parts, and did not face the same struggles as those further along the dissociative continuum Because of this, they did not want to equate their experiences with those of people living with DID.

From their essay on the subject (here):

“[…] someone elsewhere in this thread said something like ‘I don’t want to call myself multiple because I don’t want to minimize the sufferings of those who are really multiple’. And I can really relate to that. That’s why I say I’m not-quite-multiple usually. Because I don’t lose time and never have, I can’t possibly know what that’s like… I don’t have barriers that prevent communication between parts… I don’t have the struggles that people who are further down the continuum from me have, and I would never want to minimize their issues by claiming that my own are the same.”

4. Mid-Continuum and OSDD

Much of Vickis' writing strongly resembles what is now recognized as OSDD (formerly DDNOS). However, OSDD/DDNOS was rarely mentioned directly in their earlier work. It might've been due to the lack of research surrounding OSDD then—as it only was properly researched in the 2000's and 2010's—and Vickis wanting to use a less clinical term.

In 1999, Vickis remarked that people identifying as mid-continuum often received an OSDD diagnosis if they pursued formal evaluation. This was only mentioned briefly.

Late 1990's: The Precursor to Median

Over several years, mid-continuum became increasingly popular across the internet. It attracted a broad range of people within plural communities. As the label grew, anti-DID/OSDD and anti-psychiatry communities began objecting to it. Their objections were largely tied to mid-continuum's origins in dissociative theory and psychology.

Dark Personalities listed many psychological terms as derogatory to empowered and natural multiples, including DID, alter, and host. Mid-continuum itself also became a target of criticism.

The Push for a Replacement Term

Dark Personalities stated: "Since many people feel the idea of a continuum to be inaccurate, many are seeking a new term instead of mid-continuum." This effort to replace mid-continuum would eventually lead, in the 2000s, to the rise of the term median.

2000s: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum

An anti-DID/OSDD organization later coined the term median as a replacement for mid-continuum. Median became significantly more popular. As a result, mid-continuum gradually fell out of common use. On the Pavilion website, Astraea’s Web wrote an essay on the midcontinuum and why they came up with the median label to replace it.

“It’s important to allow the concept to be inclusive of everyone who fits, regardless of past abuse history or origins, much as is currently being done for ‘multiplicity.’ With its roots in the abuse-dissociation model, midcontinuum is too limiting; it is no longer useful to us. Median creates a certain measure of psychological distance and gives the concept a fresh start, without the dissociative baggage of the past, and embraces all who feel they are more than one.”

(X X X)

ARCHIVE , ALSO APPLIED TO BELOW TIMELINE; Pavillion's Policies Archive — "MPD/DID vs. Multiple" Pavillion's Library Archive — "A brief history of Midcontinuum" The Lancers' Codex — "Addressing the MPD/DID Issue"

2002–2007: The Rise of Median, Natural Multiplicity Activism, and Organized Anti-DID Campaigns

2003: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum

In 2003, the natural multiplicity organizations The Lancers and Pavilion Hall decided that mid-continuum was too rooted in psychology and dissociation. They argued that it was overly limiting because it was based on the abuse-dissociation model and did not adequately include people whose plurality was understood as non-traumagenic or non-dissociative.

As a result, they coined the term median to replace mid-continuum. Unlike mid-continuum, which was grounded in Braun's dissociative continuum model, median was intentionally broader and more abstract. Pavilion described plurality not as a linear spectrum, but as a sphere with infinitely many possible points, emphasizing fluidity, diversity, and nonlinear identity. According to their framework, someone could identify as median if they experienced themselves as multiple selves, but did not perceive those selves as fully independent.

This shift represented a significant philosophical departure. Mid-continuum had originally been created by dissociative people for dissociative people. Median, by contrast, was created by non-dissociative natural multiplicity advocates who believed mid-continuum was too psychologically grounded and insufficiently inclusive of their experiences.

Median and the Exclusion of DID/OSDD Systems

The Lancers and Pavilion Hall did not intend for people with DID or OSDD to use the median label. Their philosophy held that people with dissociative disorders were not truly plural, multiple, or median unless they no longer met diagnostic criteria. In their view, only "functional" and "non-disordered" individuals could properly claim these identities. If someone with DID or OSDD functioned according to their standards, they were considered no longer disordered.

Because their definitions of plurality and medianhood were often broad and vague, many people with DID and OSDD nevertheless identified with the concept despite the organizations' intentions.

1998–2014: Empowered Multiplicity, MultiGardens, and the Natural Multiplicity Movement

Empowered Multiplicity and MultiGardens

Out of the natural multiplicity movement emerged the concept of empowered multiplicity, which placed a strong emphasis on functionality and distinguished itself from what proponents called "survivor multiples."

In 1999, MultiGardens was established, though it was short-lived. Not long afterward, the person who coined the term "empowered multiplicity" stated that it had never been intended to exclude trauma survivors and that they had not meant to create so much conflict. Despite this, they continued to criticize survivors, as well as those who sought fusion or therapeutic treatment.

Natural Multiplicity as a Movement

By the early 2000s, natural multiplicity had evolved into a full-fledged movement. Its central aim was to establish that plural experiences were not inherently pathological. Many participants insisted that childhood trauma or abuse could not cause plurality or multiplicity. Even to this day, plurals insist that pwCDDs are looking to blame someone for something they already had—pushing the narrative that pwCDDs were multiple prior to abuse and would've been multiple if it hadn't happened—and that we have internalized pluralphobia because we 'hate ourselves'

Natural multiplicity was not simply about advocating for non-disordered plurality; it also positioned itself in opposition to people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Astraea and associated groups actively sought to challenge the legitimacy of DID and MPD as diagnoses, including attempts to have DID removed from the DSM.

Even after the term natural multiple began to be replaced by endogenic around 2014—largely because "natural" implied that systems with CDDs were somehow unnatural—the underlying ideological framework remained much the same. The earliest documented use of the term endogenic dates to 2014.

2000–2010s: The DID Boycott and Anti-Psychiatry Campaigns

For a whole decade, activists associated with the natural multiplicity and anti-psychiatry movements campaigned to challenge, revise, or remove the DID diagnosis from the DSM. This movement was deeply intertwined with both anti-psychology rhetoric and natural multiplicity ideology.

Prominent essays from this campaign included:

“Astraea’s Multiple Personality FAQ” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.

“No More…” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.

“Removing Diagnostic Labels” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.

“Why We Are Not MPD/DID” by Dark Personalities, archived in 2001.

“Some Thoughts on Verbiage” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.

“We don’t have Multiple Personality Disorder” by The Shire, archived in 2001.

“Terminology” by Those That Walk, archived in 2002.

“The Politics of Language” by Bent Spoons, archived in 2002.

“Fixing The DSM” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2003.

This boycott significantly harmed people with complex dissociative disorders. Boycotters frequently argued that pwCDDs were not real, or that their diagnoses should be removed from diagnostic manuals. Natural and empowered multiplicity communities often paired their advocacy with broader opposition to psychiatry and psychology.

At a time when DID research was already sparse, controversial, and often inaccurate, these campaigns further complicated public and clinical understanding of dissociative disorders.

2002–2003: "Fixing The DSM"

"Fixing The DSM" was an essay written by The Jinkies in 2002 and published on Astraea's Web in 2003. It had previously appeared on Pavilion Hall's LiveJournal forum and in Pavilion's library. (X X X)

The essay argued that the DID and OSDD diagnoses should either be revised to better represent non-dissociative plural experiences or removed from the DSM entirely.

Jinkies contended that people without DID or OSDD might feel excluded from plural identity because they did not meet diagnostic criteria. They criticized the DSM for defining DID and OSDD in terms of dissociation, arguing that this invalidated non-dissociative plural experiences.

The essay ultimately proposed replacing DID with the term Ego-Dystonic Plurality, a phrase coined by the creator of Astraea's Web. Modeled after the historical diagnosis of Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality, this proposed label would have stripped DID and OSDD of their established clinical frameworks.

Jinkies concluded by asserting that non-disordered experiences do not belong in the DSM. While that statement is true in itself, DID and OSDD are inherently disordered conditions, making the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the realities of those diagnoses.

2002: The Formation of The Lancers and Pavilion Hall

In June 2002, two sister organizations were formed: The Lancers and Pavilion Hall. Both were self-described natural multiplicity activist groups. Though inactive today, their influence remains substantial. Their last known activity appears to have been in 2015.

These organizations were responsible for coining the term median system, creating the Layman's Guide to Multiplicity, and popularizing the idea of plurality as an umbrella term. Their impact on modern plural terminology and discourse remains significant.

The Lancers

Formation and Purpose; The Lancers were founded to "resolve the conflict between plural and non-plural types" and to foster understanding between singlets, medians, and multiples. Despite this stated goal, they did not support DID or what they disparagingly referred to as "survivorwhine sites."

Membership Requirements; Membership was restricted to natural multiples. People with DID or OSDD were explicitly excluded.

Applicants were required to sign the In Essence Pledge—viewed here and here—affirming that they were functioning and sane. They were also expected to publicly display this pledge on their websites and follow the organization's codex. Failure to comply could result in removal.

The organization strongly emphasized appearing non-disordered. Prospective members who were not yet functioning well enough to present themselves as "strong, sane, and responsible" were discouraged from joining. They stated that if your system “cannot yet work functionally together in daily life, do not ask to join. If you wish to help the Lancers but haven't got things sufficiently together to be able to present to the world as strong, sane, and responsible, look elsewhere for help -- Astraea's is a good place to begin [...]” (X)

The Codex; The Lancers developed a body of internal theory known as the Codex, which outlined their views on natural multiplicity. Among its concepts were "paths," later renamed "fires," though these terms did not gain widespread use. Their most enduring contribution was the term median, which replaced mid-continuum.

Pavilion Hall

Formation and Purpose; Pavilion Hall was founded around the same time as The Lancers by the same group of people. Like The Lancers, Pavilion excluded people with DID and OSDD.

Pavilion described itself as an activist organization dedicated to promoting positive views of healthy multiplicity. Its goals included challenging the classification of multiplicity as a mental disorder, establishing common ground among plurals, and promoting natural multiplicity theories in both academic and non-academic settings. [X]

Membership; Members were expected to live as healthy multiples so as not to undermine their mission of ending the idea that multiplicity was a disorder. While signing the In Essence Pledge was encouraged, it was not mandatory. [X]

Hierarchy; You can read a more in-depth explanation of these positions on their page here

Pavilion had a five-tier organizational hierarchy:

Frontliners: The Frontliners’ main job was to seek out places where they could spread the word of natural multiplicity. This mainly included any space specifically centering around DID/OSDD—forums (discussed more below), websites (X), and articles (X), as well as mental health clinics (X), and even dissociative specialists such as from the ISSTD (X). They also occasionally sought out spiritual or unorthodox spaces to “convert,” such as a soulbonding forum. (X)They usually referred to this job as responding to “action alerts.” This part of Pavilion was surprisingly coordinated. You can find an action alerts page on their website here. You can also find an action alerts tag on their forums here.Another job for Frontliners was to “monitor” DID/OSDD forums, find people who they suspected didn’t actually have DID/OSDD, and bring them into the natural multiplicity community. (X X X) Here is a page they wrote on their justification behind this. The Pavilion website also had an entire section called The Armory, which was dedicated to hosting resources specifically for Frontliners to do this sort of work. (X)

Scholars: These were the members of Pavilion who wrote the essays that the Frontliners could use in their arguments or discourse. They also supported the organization through other means such as researching counterarguments against psychology, or creating new websites for Pavilion to spread their purpose.

Knights/Coordinators: This was a temporary position. Members became Coordinators for the duration that they were running a project for Pavilion. One example of a Pavilion project would be Project Bananarama (later renamed Paperchase), in which they mailed out over 200 Pavilion brochures to psychologists and dissociative specialists. (X)

Diplomats: These were the members who spread Pavilion’s purpose offline in real life areas. One example of Pavilion’s offline activism would be slipping notes about natural multiplicity inside of DID/OSDD books. (X)

Castles/Directors: This appeared to be the highest level of the hierarchy. Directors were the leaders of Pavilion who kept an eye on every other members’ activity and projects.

One notable Pavilion project, originally called Project Bananarama and later renamed Paperchase, involved mailing more than 200 brochures promoting natural multiplicity to psychologists and dissociative specialists. MEMBERS; An archived list of The Lancer’s members can be found here. An archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here. Another archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.

Concerning Activities of The Lancers and Pavilion

Documented behaviors included:

Mailing hundreds of natural multiplicity brochures to dissociative specialists

Editing and vandalizing the DID Wikipedia page (SEE BELOW)

Arguing that people with DID could not truly be multiple until they were no longer "dysfunctional"  (X X)

Ridiculing PTSD- and DID-focused events, writings, and individuals (X X)

Joking about disrupting DID/OSDD conventions  (X)

Monitoring DID/OSDD forums for potential recruits (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)

Coordinating "action alerts" to target specific spaces or publications (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)

Joking about "converting" others to natural multiplicity (X)

Drawing inspiration from anti-DID groups such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) (X)

Openly advocating for the removal of DID and OSDD from diagnostic manuals (X)

ARCHIVES

The Lancers’ Website Archive

The Lancers’ Public LiveJournal Forum

The Lancers’ Codex Archive

Pavilion’s Website Archive

Pavilions’ Public LiveJournal Forum

The Layman’s Guide to Multiplicity

Lancers/Pavilions’ Multiplicity Brochure

2003–2006: Pavilion and the DID Wikipedia Article

In February 2003, Pavilion members coordinated an effort to edit the Wikipedia article on Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Using Pavilion's "action alert" system, Astraea Household encouraged members to revise the article. Pavilion member Amorpha drafted and implemented substantial edits. You can read their rough draft here.

These changes shifted the article's focus toward controversy and introduced extensive material about "healthy multiplicity" (also called natural multiplicity). The revised article suggested that many multiples were not diagnosed, did not need therapy, did not have histories of childhood trauma, and did not wish to integrate

It also proposed that DID should be revised or removed from the DSM to accommodate natural multiples.

“Because such multiples do not experience their condition as disordered or sick in any way, some have proposed that the diagnosis of DID be removed from the DSM entirely, or revised to classify multiples who have difficulty communicating and sharing memories and/or wish to integrate.”

These additions remained in the article until 2006, when they were removed for lacking relevance to DID. Shortly afterward, the broader controversy section was also removed. Archive of natural/healthy multiplicity removal & reasoning. Archive of controversy removal & reasoning. archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article

2005–2007: The Natural/Healthy Multiplicity Wikipedia Article

A separate Wikipedia article on natural or healthy multiplicity was later created. This article blended concepts of natural multiplicity with the clinical treatment goal of healthy multiplicity (also called resolution). Here is an archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article.

It also reflected Pavilion's belief that people with DID or OSDD who cooperated well internally no longer truly had those disorders.

The article relied heavily on sources created by Pavilion members, including:

Astraea's Web

Collective Phenomenon

Their shared LiveJournal community

The Layman's Guide to Multiplicity

Pavilion Hall

The Lancers

In 2007, the article was nominated for deletion due to its reliance on blogs, forums, and original research rather than reliable secondary sources. The nomination was successful, and the article was deleted.

This deletion highlighted a central problem for natural multiplicity advocates: despite extensive searching, they were unable to find substantial professional or academic support for the concept as an innate, non-pathological state. You can read the thread about it here.  Amorpha expressed frustration towards the reasons for deletion, specifically regarding 'reliable' sources. They explained that no matter how much they searched the Internet for proof, they could not find any professionals discussing natural multiplicity. The only thing they could find on healthy multiplicity was, obviously, related to CDD treatment.

“We helped to work on that article. It was deleted for containing ‘too much original research’ and ‘not enough acceptable sources.’ The sources thing was the real problem-- we've really tried combing the Internet for that, but they're looking for ‘secondary sources’, aka articles by doctors or journalists or someone working in some ‘professional’ capacity. And there honestly just isn't much. Most of the professionally-written material we've come across that mentions healthy multiplicity in any way approached it from the standpoint that it's all MPD/DID, and proposing the ‘radical’ idea that multiples don't have to integrate (though, of course, it's always suggested that they're only supposed to be capable of living independently and non-integrated after being in therapy for years). I don't object to using those as sources, as I think a big point to be emphasized in the whole concept of healthy multiplicity is that a system can start out disordered and come to be healthy and stable in time, but what we needed and couldn't find were sources talking about it as a natural state of being-- not necessarily in terms of a pathological deviation from the norm[...]”

tag list: @anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior

UPDATE LOG: 04/25/2026 , APRIL 25TH, 2026

- Added the Many Voices website link for convenience

tag list of pure fucking evil; @anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior

We often describe our working memory as stacks of Swiss cheese. We always have several ppl coconscious and any of them can briefly step into front for any amount of time. Each alters memory is a slice of Swiss cheese with holes in it. Each alters slice is a little different based on how close to front they were during the time we're trying to remember. When they are all stacked on top of each other some holes get "filled" by the memory from a nearby alter who shares with the fronter. But some of the holes line up and no one nearby knows what happened. This only applies during times of minimal stress and for shorter periods like a few days or less.

The treatment to achieve FF and FM are literally the same, the only difference is when you stop treatment. In order to achieve FF, you need to first achieve FM. You can't fuse all your alters together if you aren't already functioning fluidly with mostly dismantled amnesia barriers.

And even people going for functional multiplicity will almost always experience at least one fusion during their healing. Fusion is a natural result of integration and healing, especially when processing the trauma held by fragments or less frequently active parts. FM is much easier maintain with a smaller system size. In fact, a lot of the people who achieve FF were initially aiming for FM, and they realized how healing fusion was and how much more functional they became with less parts.

Fear of fusion happens as a result of dissociation, it happens because your brain has wired itself to compartmentalize trauma instead of integrating it, and is convinced that this is the only way to survive. It also happens as the result of the fear of normalcy that many complex trauma survivors have.

If an alter behaves protectively, they are a protector. If they look after other parts or the body, they are a caretaker, and so on.

"Can I be a protector if-"

Do you behave protectively? Is your job to protect other parts or the body? Because that's literally the only criteria.

"I'm so terrified of integration because what will we do if our protector fuses?"

You don't "need" a protector. And fusion isn't going to happen if the parts involved cannot healthily function as one. Your protector isn't going to disappear and your system isn't going to fall into dysfunction just because there isn't one single alter with the "protector" label slapped onto it. Fusion is a result of healing and improves functionality, it doesn't worsen it.

"What if I don't have a gatekeeper?"