Resources & Misc & Memes

So we want to reiterate:

We are a mixed origin DID system. We have non-traumagenic headmates. Endogenic & Non-traumagenic systems are repeatedly mentioned medically, and we are medically recognized by trained professionals, as mixed origin.

Endogenic systems are real, and supported on this page, if you have an issue, then feel free to block us.

Thank you.

videogamebased

videogamebased describes a system whose function, headspace, headmates, etc. are affected by video games without saying anything about the system's origin. this could include the following: -having a headspace that looks and functions like a video game -fronting feels like controlling a character in a game -comparing various system functions to mechanics or functions from video games -having introjects from video games -conceptualizing your system roles as relating to roles or archetypes in video games not all of those things have to be true of a videogamebased system, just enough where they feel like the term fits them.

Finally. Some peace.

Even if the host had no idea what they were doing as a kid, they still went through the process of tulpa creation because playing with, thinking about, and thereby interacting with a thought until it becomes sentient is literally the core of Tulpamancy. Anyone can do it. Tulpa creation is a fundamental human experience, no single culture can claim something literally anyone can do without realizing it. It’d be like if a culture tried claiming that dreaming was exclusive to their culture and bashed any other person for doing it.

Tulpamancy is a fundamental human experience.

Because, frankly, the anti-tulpa narrative was manufactured to shutdown created systems, and present bigotry in a way that appeared progressive. People aren't actually against words from other languages and religions being used in new ways. They're against these words being used by endogenic systems.

As a pro-endo mixed/POC system who has spent hours upon hours trying to understand the tulpa language discourse argument- I'm honestly really fucking hurt by this hugely inaccurate assumption. I don't see how we're trying to shut down created systems, what i see is trying to educate and steer people away from a term that was created through ignorance, racism [albeit not forwardly malicious], and cultural appropriation.

Tulpa creation bears no connection to Tibetan Buddhism anymore —not that it ever really did, given this exact phenomenon is not actually mentioned to exist, ever, by, i forgot the name of the person who invented the term but i know she was a) white and b) racist in ways outside of this — but is still touted around as being connected and part of that spiritual practice.

It's not about "we dont want endos using this term." It's that we want the term to stop being used ALTOGETHER. We personally have witnessed traumagenic systems exploring creating headmates, and we have steered them away from using tulpa language in favor of "parogenic" as a term.

It saddens us that you can just so brazenly dismiss it as a whole as shutting down created systems while so much else is going on that you're choosing to ignore.

You have a good heart - do more research into why people are saying what they are and don't just dismiss them like that. Please don't speak over those people who are a part of the culture being appropriated, simply because of refusal to change.

And yes, we asked this on anon not out of cowardice, but because we'd really rather not start getting a bunch of death threats on our main blog.

-Enzo

Okay, let's try a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that there are two universes. In one universe, the anti-tulpa narrative begins and is popularized because it's harmful to Tibetan Buddhists as an ethnoreligious group.

In the other, the anti-tulpa narrative is concocted and pushed heavily by anti-endos as a way of delegitimizing one of the strongest and most well-researched endogenic communities.

What would you say the differences would be between these two universes?

Personally, I think if one were to enter the first universe, you would find several things.

Anti-tulpa sentiment probably would have begun in the early 2000s as the internet was coming into more sidespread use and shows like Supernatural and X-Files would use tulpas as horror monsters.

Similar to above, once backlash started, it would be hitting all presentations of tulpas, including in creepypastas and its use by the SCP Foundation.

Much of the backlash would be coming from members of the Tibetan Buddhist community, including at least some spiritual leaders because yes, religions have hierarchies of leadership.

Well, what about the second universe? What would we expect that universe to look like? Personally, I would expect the following:

There would be zero trace of anyone ever taking issue with the tulpas in shows like Supernatural or X-Files prior to tulpamancy being formed.

All backlash would be focused solely on tulpamancers. Nobody ever would mention the SCP Foundation, Mandella Catalogue or creepypastas about tulpas.

Most of the anti-tulpa backlash would be coming from system circles, and would be heavily pushed by anti-endos. While you might be able to fund a small handful of Tibetan Buddhists who have been convinced by anti-endo rhetoric that it's bad, there would be no spiritual leaders getting involved and most Tibetan Buddhists you ask outside of system spaces wouldn't care.

Which of these two universes do you feel most resembles our own?

Before you answer, here's a fun thread comparing the differences in people's opinions on r/systemscringe vs those on r/Buddhism

When r/systemscringe is pushing a narrative that the word is appropriation while actual Buddhist communities on the same site shrug their shoulders and don't care, this should send up immediate red flags as to the legitimacy of this whole controversy, and which groups are actually interest in pushing it.

Now, I am not suggesting that none of the very small handful of actual Tibetan Buddhists who have taken issues with the practice don't legitimately feel as they claim to.

The problem with propaganda is that it's often very good at manipulating people's emotions. If it couldn't do that, it wouldn't be effective.

We've seen this with similar anti-endo smears, like the ones claiming "system hopping" was appropriated from RAMCOA systems. And sure enough, despite its use in the plural community predating any RAMCOA connection by a full 16 years, this claim still persisted. And some RAMCOA systems were even manipulated by these lies and convinced endogenic systems were stealing terms from their community.

We actually see this same tactic over and over again.

We see it with "system hopping" which they claim was stolen from RAMCOA systems. We see it with "sysmed," which they claim is stolen from the LGBT community. We see this with the very concept of plurality itself.

anti hurricanes: you shouldnt use "hurricane" as a term because its from the taino language's word "hurakan" and youre just using "hurricane" to make things sound foreign, just use "storm"

pro hurricanes: but "hurricane" is only based off of a word in the taino language. "storm" could mean so many other things and "hurricane" is just used because its more specific. plus theres so many of our things out there already using the word "hurricane" that if we left it to just use "storm" we'd have no history or resources

🤣

But you know, in all honesty, I actually think the anti-hurricanes would have a stronger argument than anti-tulpas.

Where you have tulpa being shared from an explorer in a land that was never colonized by Europeans, a Buddhist woman who was respected enough to gain audience with the Dalai Lama... hurricane's origin is being adopted by actual colonizers who stole the land of indigenous people.

The power dynamic at play should make this much more egregious.

The difference in how these terms are treated, the fact that nobody is making an anti-hurricane argument, is why I see a lot of the tulpacourse as disingenuous.

Both words come from another language, specifically from a religion, and use those words in new ways detached from their roots.

Why tulpa and not hurricane?

Why the hypocrisy?

Because, frankly, the anti-tulpa narrative was manufactured to shutdown created systems, and present bigotry in a way that appeared progressive. People aren't actually against words from other languages and religions being used in new ways. They're against these words being used by endogenic systems.

So let's go!

Endogenic System was coined by @thelunastusco in 2014.

There. Done.

I'm glad we all did that!

Oh, wait! They wanted me to talk about this claim!

Yeah... so... I can't find any evidence that Freud actually used that word in this way...

What's being cited here is a book called "The Trinity of Trauma: Ignorance, Fragility, and Control: The Evolving Concept of Trauma / The Concept and Facts of Dissociation in Trauma"

The author uses the word endogenic or refers to endogenesis of various disorders 21 times in this book according to Google.

This is, so far as I can tell, the author's own phrasing. Not Freud's.

And the book was published in 2015, a year after the term endogenic had already been in used by the plural community.

Actually, even framing "hysterical neurosis" as the first diagnosis of multiple personalities is a bit misleading.

Hysterical neurosis was a VERY broad diagnosis that in turn had a dissociative subtype that in turn included multiple personalities as one possible symptom. So even if this could be traced back to Freud, it wouldn't be explicitly about DID, in the same way we shouldn't treat every single mention of Schizophrenia from this period as being about autism. (Since ASD was considered a subtype of Schizophrenia at the time.)

But that's really beside the point. There's just no evidence that I've been able to find where Freud reffered to this as being. I'll admit, I could be putting in the wrong search terms. And it's hard to sort through a century of academic papers. But as it stands, I haven't found a source showing "endogenic" being used to refer to the fantasy model before this book in 2015. And if it was, it's at least uncommon enough that you wouldn't find it unless you're explicitly looking for any usage of the word that could make for a solid smear campaign.

Which really is what this is.

Just like how anti-endos claimed "natural multiplicity" was ableist and suggested traumagenic systems were "unnatural," when any good faith reading would suggest that it was intended in a nature/nurture context: Having a natural cause, as opposed to an environmental one. (Although I will admit the term did get muddled and start to lose meaning once it started including supernatural multiplicity and created systems.)

Or how anti-endos have said tulpas and thoughtforms are appropriative despite Tibetan Buddhists generally not caring.

Or, conversely, how they try to make trans systems calling them "sysmeds" out to be transphobic.

Ultimately, these are not good faith criticisms, and never have been.

(This is my own definition of sysmed based on how I use the term and have seen others use the term.)

A sysmed or system medicalist is someone with an overly-medicalized view of plurality and systemhood; and who enforces that view onto others. This is most commonly associated with false beliefs that someone can't be plural (having multiple people, personality states or other entities in one body) without a mental disorder or trauma, but also extends to beliefs like "headmates/alters are parts, not people."

The term is derived from transmedicalism, an exclusionist ideology that holds that transness is inherently a mental disorder and that any trans person who doesn't experience gender dysphoria can't actually be transgender.

Despite being frequently presented as scientific fact, sysmed claims tend to lack support by actual scientists, who almost unanimously acknowledge the existence of other forms of plurality. (Such as the World Health Organization's ICD-11 stating that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.)

@mythicsacademy

Hi! Sorry I didn't get to this at the time. This comes from the Boundaries with Normality.

✨Note that I'm not the creator of this term, but the creator would like to remain anonymous.

Poly-synkró

(from greek word synkrótima meaning complex, and the Greek prefix poly meaning many)

Definition: a system in which is complex in ways such as:

System function, Layers, alter count, alter experience and formation

As I was working on gathering terms for one of our first posts, the one about origins, I couldn't find the original coiners for the term endogenic. I've found an archive of a post from not-your-fucking-pet on tumblr dating from August 8 of 2014 that's stated as the official coiner by pluralpedia.org, but other sources such as multiplicity.fandom.org state that the original coiners are the Lunastus Collective, and I'm not sure if this is the same system as the previous one. Plus I remember someone else on Tumblr claiming to be the original coiners of the term endogenic and I remember them saying they were partially traumagenic and ended up not fully using the endogenic label for themselves (if I remember right). So I'm confused as to which is the true origin of the term. Is there any possibility that you know who the original coiners are by any chance?

Since you're one of the most known people advocating for tulpamancy in this platform I figured you might know the history behind terms such as endogenic, but don't feel forced in any way to answer to this or do any additional research on the subject, I would understand.

Sincerely, Plurality Resources.

The Lunastus Collective recounts coining it in this post:

You may want to ask @thelunastusco for further details.

Endogenic & Non-Traumagenic Plurality By Guardians System, a diagnosed traumagenic DID system with PTSD and CPTSD For use by everyone, to be read by EVERYONE Brought to you by sysmeds who say “I’m not reading all that” (/j)

Feel free to DM on Twitter at GuardiansSystemOpen for anonymous questions on Tellonym also under GuardiansSystemOtherwise, just comment! :)

Lists of Links Put together by community members! (Not thoroughly checked)

Plurality/Multiplicity + Syscourse Resources and Findings Pastebin by ButterflyBlood - contains info from the DSM-3 to the DSM-V, medical info, community info, Tulpa info, syscourse info, and a video

Cambrian's Thread of Experts Thread by the Cambrian Crew - contains info from Dr Eric Yarbrough (Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association), info from Dr Nijenhuis and Van Der Hart (two of the writers of the Theory of Structural Dissociation), info from the ICD-11 and DSM-V-TR, and an interview by Dr Richard Loewenstein (lead editor of the DSM-V’s section on DIssociative Disorders)

Studies into non-disordered and/or endogenic plurality Pastebin by Oliviaset - contains multiple science/government links and a video

Collected Plurality Info - 8 pages of resources - Fractal System Document by The Fractal System - contains explanations on multiple types of plurality and references links to each, contains community info, history info, academic info, and more

Scientific Papers on Endogenic Plurality - r/Plural Post and comments by numerous systems/supporters - contains a massive amount of uncategorised links to all types of information on non-traumagenic plurality

Multiplicity Links - SARAH K REECE Site by Sarah K Reece - a previously diagnosed traumagenic DID system that no longer fits the criteria but is still a system, links focus mainly on general helpful system information

Scientific Articles on Nondisordered Systems Document by Tabellenblatt1 (?) - contains info specific to non-disordered plurality, including the interview by Dr Richard Loewenstein

Ex Uno Plures - Articles Community site by Plures House - contains explanations on plurality, info on living plural, info on personal experiences, medical info, philosophical info, social info, and syscourse info

An Endogenic Proof Masterlist - Plural Anomaly Document by Plural Anomaly - contains community info, academic info, and criticisms on the Theory of Structural Dissociation

Plurality Studies - Multiplicity and Plurality Wiki Wiki made by numerous community members - contains uncategorised abstracts from medical info and info on Tulpas

Non-Traumagenic & Endogenic System Information General medical/clinical studies and research

It's just a body: A community-based participatory exploration of the experiences and health care needs for transgender plural people Study by numerous people including a system - repeatedly references and explains multiple types of plurality, both traumagenic and non-traumagenic

Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview Study on Personal Experiences of People with Multiple Selves Study by numerous people - uses some outdated language, however, explores how systems exist both with and without Dissociative Identity Disorder

Conceptualising multiplicity spectrum experiences: a systematic review and thematic synthesis Study by numerous people - explores how multiplicity exists outside of Dissociative Identity Disorder in a medical context in order to recommend appropriate health services

Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of  Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts (Alternative Link) Study by Kymbra Clayton - explains how multiple selves can be healthy without the need for singularity

NORMAL DIMENSIONS OF MULTIPLE PERSONALITY WITHOUT AMNESIA Study by multiple people - uses slightly outdated language, describes how multiplicity can be considered natural without the dissociative disorders, and how the dissociative disorders could simply be expanding upon multiplicity

Cognitive processes in dissociation: An analysis of core theoretical assumptions Study by numerous people - discusses potentially healthy dissociation and the existence of dissociation without trauma

MODES OF EXISTENCE: TOWARDS A PHENOMENOLOGICAL POLYPSYCHISM Study by Mick Cooper - discusses alternative ways for multiple selves to exist

A plurality of selves? An illustration of polypsychism in a recovered addict Study by Peter T.F. Raggatt - discusses the normality of non-traumagenic multiplicity and different ways for natural plurality to exist

A Jungian Perspective on the Dissociability of the Self Study by Brian R. Skea - includes multiple mentions of Freud, extremely explicit and triggering language, and repeated use of outdated terms, however helps to provide an understanding of much older views on non-traumagenic dissociation and plurality

TRANSGENDER Mental Health - chapter 11 Book by Dr. Eric Yarbrough of the American Psychiatric Association - states repeatedly throughout the chapter that plurality is only a part of dissociative identity disorder and exists without the disorder, as well as trauma only being reported in some cases of plurality and that trauma is not the only cause for plurality, and states that plurality itself is only a collection of alters

"I've Learned to Treat my Characters like People": Varieties of Agency and Interaction of Writers' Experiences of their Characters' Voices Study by multiple people - describes authors’ common experience of accidental multiplicity caused by their characters gaining autonomy

Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with Previous Formulations Article by Ellert R S Nijenhuis and Onno van der Hart (two of the writers of the Theory of Structural Dissociation) - page 27, at the end of the article, they recognise mediumship and similar practices as a “division of personality,” which is what they refer to the dissociative disorders as

Exploring the Experiences of Young People with Multiplicity Research by Zarah Eve and Sarah Perry - begins with multiplicity only sometimes being applicable for a DID/OSDD diagnosis, and continues that multiplicity itself and the dissociative disorders are not the same, as well as some respondents not associating their multiplicity with trauma alongside the dissociative disorders not applying to some of the respondents, and having a section for some multiplicity not being based in trauma

Comparison of Brazilian spiritist mediumship and dissociative identity disorder Study by multiple people - in comparing Dissociative Identity Disorder with Brazilian Spiritist Mediumship, it was found the two shared very similar results, only that the Mediumship results appeared slightly healthier than DID

Tulpamancy Studies and research specifically on Tulpas, though can apply to other plurality

Tibetan Buddhist with a Tulpa - Opinion on Plurality Post by Dharma Yokeyodasampa - a Tibetan Buddhist with a more traditional Tulpa asking community members for questions, discussions include what they think about plurality, western Tulpamancy, how their Tulpa feels, and the difference between western Tulpamancy and the Tibetan practice. (This is a post compiling and explaining most of it, with a response from Dharma.)

Personality Characteristics of Tulpamancers and Their Tulpas Study by multiple people - examines and explores what Tulpas are, what they do, their role, Tulpa experiences, some history, and more

Sentient companions predicted and modeled into existence: explaining the Tulpa phenomenon Study by Kaj Sotala - describes a theory on how Tulpas may be psychologically caused via “feedback loops” (can also be applied to various other types of plurality, such as multiplicity caused by authors/artists and caused by other disorders)

A Time for Tulpas Thesis by Nick Stager - discusses what a Tulpa is, experiences with Tulpas, the development of Tulpas, how other practices may be similar, how an author can accidentally create Tulpas, and more

Tracking the Tulpa - Exploring the "Tibetan" Origins of a Contemporary Paranormal Idea Book by Natasha L. Mikles and Joseph P. Laycock - explains what Tulpas are, how Tulpas are created both intentionally and unintentionally, some of the history behind Tulpa, and Tulpas based on theosophy instead of the Tibetan practice

Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences Study by Jacob J. Isler - explains what Tulpamancy is and how it can differ from Dissociative Identity Disorder but still be plural 

Paranormalizing the Popular through the Tibetan Tulpa: Or what the next Dalai Lama, the X Files and Affect Theory (might) have in common Article by Ben Joffe - explains what Tulpas are, how Tulpas develop, Tulpa experiences in the outside world, the difference between Tulpamancy and the Tibetan practice, some of the history behind Tulpas, Theosophy-related Tulpas, and Tibetan Sprulpa experiences

Making Friends - Transcript of a Podcast on Tulpas (Slightly incorrect: more info here) Discussion by multiple people - explains multiple personal experiences with a Tulpa, actions of a Tulpa, accidental creation of Tulpas through writing, Tulpas taking over the physical body, Tulpas having a different identity, purposeful creation of Tulpas, discussions with professionals (Richard J. Loewenstein,) the difference between Tulpas and psychosis, the similarity between Tulpas and Dissociative Identity Disorder, how without distress then it can’t be disordered, and more

Daring to Hear Voices

Dalai Lama - Buddhist practices are open to those who need them

Clinical Information Helpful medical information not specifically related to non-traumagenic systems

DID Brain Pattern Study Doesn't Measure Up - December 2018 Critique by Spot&Cerberus - discusses the multiple flaws with the MRI scan on DID patients

Moral Status and the Treatment of DID Study by Timothy J. Bane - discusses the current known treatments for DID in the context of integration being commonly used, how it may be unethical and unhealthy to force integration, and that a multiple can healthily exist

DID, OSDD, and UDD Diagnostic Guide (NZ) Diagnostic guide by ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) - the New Zealand guide to diagnosing patients with DID, OSDD, and UDD, includes history of the diagnosis, problems with the diagnosis, alternative diagnoses, requirements for a diagnosis, what to avoid in a diagnosis, what to look for in a diagnosis, and similar

The Theory of Structural Dissociation Theory by multiple people - the most commonly used theory to explain dissociation, often specifically related to dissociative disorders

Problems with the Theory of Structural Dissociation Research by multiple people - discusses multiple problems with the Theory of Structural Dissociation, including it being a theory, the discarding of derealisation, depersonalisation, dissociative fugue, dissociative amnesia, the lack of association with trauma and PTSD in the DSM-V, and proposes some different ideas

ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics Book by the World Health Ogranisation - Dissociative disorders on 6B64

DSM DID ALTERATIONS

DSM-V-TR

DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Book by the American Psychiatric Association - Dissociative Disorders on page 336

DSM-IV-TR

DSM-IV

DSM-III-R

DSM-III

DSM-II-SPECIAL

DSM-II

DSM-I-SPECIAL

DSM-I

Plural History Explanations and references to different parts of plural history

Plural History - 1811 Collection by Lb Lee - contains multiple parts of history in which systems of all types have existed (there are 4 different chapters)

A Partial History of Plural Self-Advocacy Collection by Alt H - describes times in history starting from 1987 when non-traumagenic plural advocacy was recorded

It's Not Just a Tumblr Thing - Kerry Dawkins Article by Ex Uno Plures - contains references in history to plurality outside of and before Tumblr

A Brief History of the Use of "System" in a Non-DID Space Collection by Lb Lee - describes the history of the word “system” being used to describe those with multiple selves, and how it isn’t a disorder-specific term

A Quick'N'Dirty History of "System" as Plural Slang Collection by Lb Lee - explains the history of the word “system” and the different uses

"Endogenic" was not coined by Freud Collection by Sophie in Wonderland - a discussion on the anti-endos claim that “endogenic” was coined by Freud

Origin of the term Endogenic Explanation by the Lunastus Collective - details how the term “endogenic” came to be created, what led up to it, and what happened after

I saw a post saying we should just believe RAMCOA surivors... okay... so how about this one? Explanation by Sophie in Wonderland - describes how and why anti-endos think “system hopping” was stolen by endogenic systems from RAMCOA systems, including an explanation from the RAMCOA system that anti-endos reference

Community Explanations Explanations on endogenic plurality by community members (sources are used)

Debunking the Anti-Endo Carrd - Guardians System To be updated

What do Sysmeds say That is Transphobic/TERF Rhetoric? Post by multiple people - a discussion on the comparison of sysmeds and transmeds, and how their arguments and the language they use is the same

Why Not Just Use Thoughtform? Collection by Sophie in Wonderland and Olivia Set - describes why some parogenic systems prefer using Tulpa over Thoughtform 

Debunking Sysmeds - Claims and Rebuttals Carrd by Ozymandias& - lists claims that anti-endos make against endogenic systems, and critiques the claims alongside referencing studies

I would define a plural system as having multiple, compartmentalised, self-conscious agents - SophieInWonderland Collection by Sophie in Wonderland - an explanation of the validity of endogenic and non-traumagenic systems complete with referenced research and studies

Studies and Research into Endogenic and Non-Disordered Plurality

Masterpost - Academia on Endogenic and non-traumagenic plurality Post by Inclusive Syscourse - contains an explanation on the validity of endogenic and non-traumagenic plurality complete with referenced research

Claims There is No Research On Endogenics Post by Unknown - a list of research on endogenic and non-traumagenic plurality alongside explanations and descriptions

Origins of Plurality and Levels of Dissociation Study by The Phoenixes - uses the DES to gain insight into plurality not caused by trauma

The Tulpa Carrd - explain the nature and origins of Tulpamancy and what surrounds it Carrd by Unknown - lists an explanation and some history of Tulpamancy alongside references to research

Likely Origins of "Tulpamancy is Cultural Appropriation" Post by the Dragonheart System - critiques a Carrd claiming that Tulpamancy is cultural appropriation, referencing research and studies

Resources General helpful resources for all systems

Multiplicity Wiki - A wiki by plurals and multiples, for plurals and multiples Wiki by multiple people - contains terms, definitions, and general information on all types of plurality and multiplicity

Layman's Guide to Multiplicity Guide by Unknown - contains terms, definitions, information, explanations, and experiences on multiple types of plurality

The Plural Association - For Dissociative Identity Disorder & all other forms of Multiplicity under the Plural umbrella Organisation by the Stronghold System (?) - contains help sites for all types of struggling systems, alongside helpful information and articles on multiple areas

Pluralpedia - the collaborative plurality dictionary Dictionary by multiple people - contains a massive amount of information on the majority of plural terms and history

Endogenic Hub -  a site dedicated to endogenic plurality Hub by the Hordes System - contains information and experiences on multiple types of non-traumagenic plurality, alongside explanations of what plurality is

More Than One - Plurality (or multiplicity) is the existence of multiple self-aware entities inside one physical brain Site by Unknown - contains information on terms, different system origins, denounces myths about plurality, and different plural experiences

The Dissociative Initiative - For, by, and about people with multiplicity, dissociation, and amnesia Run by Sarah K Reece - a support group for systems that contains different information and resources on plurality

Tulpa Info - "For Science" Guide by Unknown - multiple different languages, explains what a Tulpa is, why they can exist, and where to begin when making a Tulpa

FAQ If you’re a sysmed, you might end up here! Congrats if you do!

What is a system? A system is anyone who has more than one entity/identity in the body/brain. 

What is plural/multiple? They mean pretty much the same as "system", only "plural" was made exclusively to be inclusive of every experience that involves many in the same body. E.g. if someone is an anti-endo or sysmed and uses the hashing "plural" to find friends, they're going to attract inclusive folks who support endos.

What is DID? DID stands for Dissociative Identity Disorder. It is a disorder in which a system experiences severe dissociation that heavily impacts their life on a day-to-day basis.

What is OSDD? OSDD stands for otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder and is used when they experience similar symptoms to DID but are missing one of the diagnostic criteria. E.g. OSDD-1A is used when there's a lack of distinct identities or no identities. OSDD-1B is used when there's a lack of memory gaps. (The separate OSDD categories don't properly exist as a diagnosis themselves - they are carried over from DDNOS.)

What is UDD? UDD stands for Unspecified Dissociative Disorder. It's often used as a placeholder diagnosis by professionals to say that although there is a dissociative disorder, they're not sure what it is.

What is a non-disordered system? A non-disordered system is a system without DID, OSDD, or UDD. They don't experience the disorders or do not fit the criteria. 

What is traumagenic, endogenic, mixed-origins, etc.? Traumagenic is a system that is formed from trauma. Endogenic is a system that is formed without trauma. Mixed-origins is a system that has multiple origins, E.g. some alters came from trauma and some did not.

What is a Tulpa? A Tulpa is a created identity that comes from repeatedly feeding information on one character or multiple characters into the brain. It can be purposeful or accidental.

DID/OSDD/UDD are trauma disorders? The diagnostic criteria for the disorders don't include trauma being necessary, nor does it anywhere else in the category. Trauma disorders and dissociative disorders are also categorised separately, and there are past studied cases of DID that weren't caused by trauma. The DSM-V-TR also includes a section that states trauma isn't necessary for a diagnosis.

You need trauma to be a system? The DSM-V specifies that a diagnosis of DID cannot be applied to cultural plurality. Culture-related plurality has existed and been documented for centuries, erased by colonisation and racism. Common cultural plurality includes Tibetan Buddhism, many Two-Spirit folk, medians, and mediums. These and more are all plural.

Dissociation is a trauma reaction? You’ll find nearly every if not every professional refers to some dissociation as “trauma-related dissociation” - take, for example, Kathy Steele, one of the writers of the Theory of Structural Dissociation, whose work consists almost only of “trauma-related dissociation”. That wouldn’t be necessary if dissociation only came from trauma. Dissociation is commonly shown to exist both inside and outside of other disorders. It’s especially common in BPD, ADHD, MADD, autism, and a few other disorders.

So only cultural and spiritual plurality can be non-traumagenic? They’re the most well-researched, but not the only non-traumagenic plurality. There are a few different theories as to how other plurality can form. Many experience their plurality caused by mostly unrelated disorders - autism, ADHD, BPD, Bipolar Disorder, MADD, etc. Others report accidentally creating alters, especially those who focus on characters, such as writers, artists, and authors. Yet more simply say they were born with their plurality, or grew up being plural without trauma being the cause. We believe plurality that hasn’t existed since birth could be caused by a “feedback loop” (here) in which one’s brain, after being fed repeated information, begins to predict the information, therefore creating actions to fill that prediction. This could be used to explain Tulpamancy (repeated info), artists/authors/writers (repeated info), ASD (masking and special interests), ADHD (masking and hyperfixations), BPD (splitting and more), MADD (repeated info), Bipolar (different states), and so on. 

Endogenic systems harm traumagenic systems? We and others have asked multiple times for sysmeds to tell us why they think endogenic systems hurt them, and every time we’ve either received silence or something that’s already been covered. Besides that, anti-endos hurt other traumagenic systems with their BS far more than endogenic systems might hurt them.

Anti-endos hurt traumagenic systems? Yup, and very frequently, considering sysmeds repeat the exact same information. Sysmeds say you have to be disordered to be a system - traumagenic systems exist without being disordered. Sysmeds say endogenic systems stole traumagenic terms - a mix of the communities coined the majority of system terms, and “endogenic” was coined by a traumagenic system. Sysmeds say what someone went through isn’t traumatising or horrific enough - traumagenic systems can be caused by any amount of trauma, no matter how “insignificant” it seems. Sysmeds repeatedly tell endogenic systems they need to have trauma - telling someone they have to have trauma when they either don’t or have amnesia around it can be incredibly damaging and has hurt many traumagenic systems. Sysmeds say they need to go to a psychologist or a therapist and be diagnosed - many traumagenic systems can’t be diagnosed. Many endogenic systems have trauma, just know they weren’t formed from it, and anti-endos repeatedly mock them about having trauma. There’s much, much more, but to end it, as a traumagenic system, we’ve personally been assaulted, harassed, threatened, told to kill ourself, and had our trauma completely invalidated and discarded by anti-endo traumagenic systems.

Expired Links Looking for alternatives

Endogenic Research (Text Form) - NightFallSystem

----------------------------

Hey everybody.

This is a list of the research and resources we've compiled over the last year or so that refers in some way to plurality, especially in the context of being endogenic and non-traumagenic supportive.

We often argue this subject on Twitter, alongside (hope you don't mind the tags) @cambriancrew and @sophieinwonderland . We've included a few of their posts in this, as they do share some wonderful information. Sophie deals in mainly Tulpamancy, we believe? And Cambrians does a wide range of things. They've both been incredibly helpful, so big credit and massive thank you to those two (and anyone else in this document) :)

Feel free to link this post or the document itself to anyone. Link it everywhere. Feel free to tag us too, as your friendly neighbourhood endo-friendly traumagenic DID system with PTSD and CPTSD. Our collective pronouns are phe/phex/phins, and we're collectively called Guardians or Guardians System.

Hope this helps some folks! If anything's wrong in this post, mention it in the notes (we think that's how Tumblr works?) and we'll adjust it in the Google Document. Alternatively, if you'd prefer to remain anonymous or would like to talk to us directly, you can check our LinkTree at the top of this page. We're always open to feedback and new research! We're especially interested in making our document more reader-friendly, as it can be a bit of an eyesore. but we're not the best at formatting documents.

If we do receive updates to edit some information, we'll be doing so on the document, so always double-check there in case there's been a change. If there are enough updates, we'll redo this post, but hopefully, that won't be necessary for a long time, because formatting all this in Tumblr is more than enough for us.

Thank you for reading!

anyways, im wondering if you or any of your followers have advice or resources or something that would be helpful for coming out as plural to our body’s parents? i feel like we should have some reading materials ready beforehand due to the prevalence of anti-endo stuff that comes up when just doing google searches on plurality, and the likely very problematic current view they have of it from popular media. with our parents, it very much falls to us to educate them about stuff in this sort of area (speaking from experience with the adhd diagnosis, coming out as ace, coming out as trans, then the autism diagnosis… they really just… dont do any reading about it or anything) so if a repository of some resources exists, or even just like, an infographic that acknowledges plurality in a not hollywood evil alter way, it would help a lot to have that as a basis for our coming out message. it would also save us a lot of mental anguish… as vehemently anti-endo content usually leaves most of us in a… very poor state for at least a few hours.

thanks in advance

(i have no idea how to end an ask, sorry if this comes across as overly formal or something)

Hi!

This is a really good question. I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly.

This page seems to have a pretty simple overview:

r/plural has an FAQ that may prove helpful:

Also, for advice on coming out itself, you may be able to get some use out of this article in the Tulpanomicon:

🙄

Okay, yes, I know "minority" doesn't mean the group is necessarily a statistical minority, and it refers to power imbalances in society.

But even from that perspective, this is equally silly. Any plural system is going to face systematic oppression from society. Most plural systems are going to have to hide who they are to protect their livelihood and maintain relationships. Many employers will refuse to hire someone who they know is plural. And while both disordered and non-disordered systems will face similar discrimination when it comes to employment, it's worth remembering that it's technically illegal to fire someone for a disability, while non-disordered systems have no such protection. (Which isn't to say disordered systems can't be discriminated against. Employers just need to make up other reasons.)

Someone with voices in their head because they have DID or Schizophrenia is legally safeguarded from discrimination in employment by disability protection. Someone who talks to spirits or gods related to their religion will be safeguarded by religious protections.

There isn't actually a legal defense for a non-disordered, non-religious system if we face discrimination in employment.

That's obviously not to say non-disordered systems face worse discrimination than disordered systems. But we do face discrimination in society, and we have unique needs as a group due to our lack of legal protection from discrimination.

Before we begin, I want to talk about roleplaying tulpas or autojects.

Different groups of plurals have different names for the phenomena, but the basics remain consistent. You roleplay a character long enough and eventually, your brain may start to see that character as someone else entirely. It dissociates from the character and the character may start to develop a life of their own, acting on their own terms, even talking to the host at different times thrpugh the day when not roleplaying. They've gained independence, autonomy and sapience.

Right off the bat, you can imagine how VR could lead to this type of experience being common, especially with characters who are vastly different from the core. What really made me interested in this concept though was this video from The Virtual Reality Show, where the host (of the show; she's not a system as far as I'm aware) pretends to be a guy for a week in VRchat.

"I mean, when in your life have you ever looked down and not been you? Never."

Okay, yeah, she's DEFINITELY not a system. 😜

I am not going to read too far into Phia's wording because much of it seems off the cuff and it's impossible to know how this really affected her exactly without being in her head or at least getting an in-depth interview.

But the short of it for anyone who doesn't want to watch the video is that it only took her four days to feel incredibly dissociated, start talking about this character as a separate person with his own thoughts and feelings, and to start talking about herself in the third person. Seven days later, she describes the character as becoming a part of her that will be always be there.

Again, I cannot possibly speculate what these words might mean to Phia or what she experienced. It obviously sounds reminiscent of system language, but it's just impossible to know what this really means to her.

But what I think this does show is what can happen to others. That you can have people with completely different avatars that they'll strongly identify with in the game and then outside of the game still identify with their physical bodies.

Remember, this is how the experience started affecting Phia in only four days.

For others in VR, they're existing in these worlds for months or years. We may have a new generation brought up in a virtual world from the age of 13. There's no telling the psychological impact that could have.

For existing plural systems, the propagation of VR is a massive boon. Apps like VRchat can allow headmates to present themselves to others in something close to their actual forms.

And I really want to take a moment to appreciate how amazing of a concept that is. This is something that has never been possible for plurals at any point in history.

But something I've never seen brought up is the potential for new systems to be created through VR dissociation. Virtugenic Systems.

Yes, I'm just coining that right now!

If this technology becomes as common as is hoped, this might actually become one of the primary ways accidental endogenic systems will develop in the future.

There have been studies into the characters of writers showing them possessing a degree of autonomy and separateness, and even the ability to speak to their creators mentally.

What I would love to see is an equivalent study to this for VR. How many VR players see their avatars as separate people? Do they hear the voice of their avatar on its own? Do they feel like they become someone else when in VR? Do they use reflexive or non-reflexive pronouns when they think of their non-VR self while in VR?

These are all topics I would love to see explored at length in future research.