Hi, just wanted to ask since I have been really interested in researching plurality. Sorry if this seems confusing 😅
I used to think that endos were a hate group (when I used to be anti-endo), but I want to know if it ended up being fake/misinfo. Do you know any sources that might debunk these claims?
Thank you, have a great day/afternoon/night and take care! :)
All good! Thanks for the ask ❤️
This has a bit of an odd answer - two main points are:
- this is an argument over history between a few different communities, so pretty much any/all sources are going to be made by the community. Blogs, posts, etc. So not what some people would consider 'reliable' (though in this community context, community information is what you would rely on)
- both sides have the same source issue mentioned above. Anti-endos have to use blogs to prove their point, and endos or pro-endos have to use blogs to prove their point. None of these sources are more 'reliable' than others (which is what many antis using the 'they're a hate group' argument are claiming).
(more below cut!)
As for what we'd suggest:
^ part of this med article goes over a little of what happened with the different versions of the DID diagnoses in the DSM and the dysfunctional vs. non-dysfunctional diagnosis problem
^ this med study adds a bit of supporting info for the article, using the DSM-3-R criteria and dysfunctional vs. non-dysfunctional symptoms
This is a guest post by Lunastus Collective on Endogenic Systems. They are the original creators of the terms endogenic system and traumagen
^ this is an article written by the coiner of 'endogenic' and 'traumagenic', discussing how the terms came to be, and what they mean.
"It was and still is horrible to see the misinterpretation of these terms, considering that we ourselves are survivors of abuse. “Endogenic” wasn’t created to mean “DID without the trauma”. It was created to mean systems that felt their plurality was due to a neurodivergence, from a psychological cause other than DID/OSDD, from some sort of spiritual cause, with a friendly outlook towards tulpamancy or soulbonding. Literally, it’s inclusive of any and all systems or plural folk that do not attribute their plurality to trauma. It has nothing to do with pretending to have a clinical disorder, or mocking anyone. It is simply a single word for many, many ways to be plural.“
^ this is the post that coined/popularised 'plural' (in the natural multiple community)
“This is one reason our clan encourages use of the word "plural" rather than "multiple". "Multiple", even standing by itself, brings to mind MPD/DID, "multiple personality disorder", "dissociative identity disorder", which are specific diagnoses created by the medical/therapeutic community. "Plural" is a much more neutral word, more commonly heard in the context of grammar than psychiatry.”
Introduction Pulled Apart By Labels Shifting Platforms & Languages The Nature of Syscourse The "True" Multiple
Below, you'll find a list of buttons. Click them in order to be taken to different moments in time that are relevant to the plural and disso
^ this is a website that covers some basic history with a few references. Imo, it does end up simplifying what was happening, but should help give a basic knowledge
LB LEE'S history essay
^ this is a write-up of a lot of multiplicity and plurality history by somebody who was quite prominent in the natural multiple community. They're someone who is quite anti-psych (as in 'doctors shouldn't be able to have power over what we experience') so do keep that in mind when reading!
^ this is intended to cover how non-disordered multiplicity has existed for a while, not specific history. But it may lead to some interesting pieces if you want to browse through it
Plural self advocacy is exactly what it says on the tin: plurals taking control of our own lives and being in charge of how we?re represente
^ this is similar to the link before, but may be able to help more
And one we'd say might be most important,
💬 0 🔁 10 ❤️ 20 · Post 1 · I’ve seen a post today that’s been circulating the plural spaces for quite a while. I will not respond to it dir
^ this is somebody going over the posts that antis reference to prove endos are a hate group/come from a hate group.
Part of the issue seems to end up being - when somebody talked about being multiple, a lot of people automatically assumed they were talking about CDDs. So when somebody talked about being multiple in a way that didn't fit the CDDs (e.g. not having trauma), that was automatically taken to be misinfo.
Alongside that, the CDDs (MPD) were the only 'known' way to be multiple. So, for those who were multiple but didn't have trauma/didn't experience dysfunction, they had to label themself MPD still. Many experiences of what was called MPD were non-disordered multiplicity, but because the communities were still in an early phase, that idea didn't exist yet - and med professionals kept pushing the 'disorder and needs treatment' idea for all multiples. Therefore, it led to the decision that 'multiple personalities' (which everyone saw as MPD) wasn't actually a disorder. Which was taken as "MPD isn't a disorder" - except people were actually talking about multiplicity, and not MPD.
If that makes sense? This is something we'd been wondering about before the 'hate group' claim (which, if we may say, is a very recent claim).
However!
There were CDD hate groups within the natural multiples community. They were real, and they did cause problems for those with a CDD. Though many may have thought they were doing 'the right thing', they did cause harm
It just wasn't the entire community. It wasn't every natural multiple. Every community has various small hate groups, whether it's about race, sexuality, gender, religion, disability, etc. The natural multiples community wasn't unique. It's definitely not unique when compared to the anti-endo community - though not a hate group in itself, it does have some clear hate groups within it (and unlike natural multiples, is a community founded on hate, disbelief, invalidation, fakeclaiming, gatekeeping, etc.)
Now, an important note -
- Even if somebody still considers the natural multiple community itself a hate group, the endogenic community is not the same community
- And, even if somebody both considers natural multiples a hate group and the same community as endogenic systems, it ignores how humanity and community and subcultures can evolve and change over time. A lot of change can happen over 20 years.
We hope this helps! This is something we personally want to do our own major post on eventually, but we're already working on a few different things, lol. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! :3
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
In the context of CDDs, multiplicity, and plurality, a "system" is a collection of parts, alters, people, or entities that exist together in one physical body.
Not everyone who is multiple or plural calls themself a system, for various reasons. Some don’t feel as if the term fits them, others don’t like the term. Like all other terms, it’s not something required to use. Somebody can be a system while not being plural; likewise, somebody can be plural without being a system.
A common myth is “systems and CDDs are the same thing”. This is going to cover why this myth is just that - a myth. Others have already attempted to do this by looking at some history of the term. For example:
https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/1220190.html (history of “system” as plural slang)
https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/881645.html (history of “system” in non-DID spaces)
This will be covering ‘system’ in a slightly different way - we're going to be looking at the 'usage' of the term. It's a term used in many different areas of psychology, and far beyond.
To explain it simply, the word “system” was never intended to be exclusive to those with a CDD. It was instead used for those with a CDD due to the original meaning and usage of the word, with the former being a collection of parts, and the latter being the ‘personality system’. In the Theory of Structural Dissociation, CDDs are a division or disruption amongst pre-existing systems. While being used for those with a CDD, it has also remained in use outside of them, and continues to be.
-The various definitions, meanings, and usages of ‘system’:
Using the principle that a system is an interacting or interrelating group of elements that work together for a common purpose, the key aspect to understand is that, within a system, the actions and performance of one part of this system are, either wholly or in part, dependent on the actions and performance of another part of the system.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/system
A system is a group of things that connect and form some kind of coherent whole
-Theory of Structural Dissociation, The Haunted Self-
Structural dissociation is a particular organization in which different psychobiological subsystems of the personality are unduly rigid and closed to each other. These features lead to a lack of coherence and coordination within the survivor’s personality as a whole.
Dissociation originally referred to a division of the personality or of consciousness. More specifically, Pierre Janet noted that dissociation involved divisions among “systems of ideas and functions that constitute personality”. He indicated that the personality is a structure comprised of various systems, as more contemporary definitions also assert. A system is an assembly of related elements comprising a whole, such that each element is a part of that whole in some sense. That is, each element is seen to be related to other elements of, or to the system in its entirety. The personality as a system can be understood as being comprised of various psychobiological states or subsystems that function in a cohesive and coordinated manner. For example, Allport proposed that personality is “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought”.
Likewise, systems theories conceptualize personality as an organized or structured system comprised of different psychobiological subsystems, which are normally more or less cohesive, and function together as a whole in healthy individuals. Structure has been defined as “the composition of component parts, an organization of a complex whole ... with reference to the positional and functional interdependence of their parts”. Indeed, in terms of evolutionary psychology, humans are comprised of a number of psychobiological (sub)systems that have evolved by natural selection and that serve different functions; that is, that allow them to function at their best in particular environments.
As 19th century French psychiatrists have already noted, dissociation involves a particular organization of the psychophysical systems that constitute personality. In our view, this organization is not arbitrary or coincidental, but in traumatization it likely follows rather well-defined, evolutionary metaphorical “fault lines” in the structure of the personality.
Dissociative divisions do not just occur among mental actions, such as experiencing sensations or affects, but primarily take place between the two major categories of psychobiological systems that make up personality. One category involves systems that are primarily geared to approaching attractive stimuli in daily life, such as food and companionship. The other category of systems involves avoiding or escaping from aversive stimuli; for example, various threats. The purpose of these systems is to help us distinguish between helpful and harmful experiences, and to generate the best adaptive responses to current life circumstances. These situations encompass our interoceptive and exteroceptive worlds, our internal and external environments as we perceive them. We refer to these psychobiological systems as action systems, because each involves
The lack of cohesion and integration of the personality manifests itself most clearly in the alternation between and coexistence of the reexperience of traumatizing events (e.g., a “night child”) and avoidance of reminders of the traumatic experience with a focus on functioning in daily life (e.g., a “day child”). This biphasic pattern is a hallmark of PTSD and is also observed in patients with other trauma-related disorders. It involves a division between action systems for defense, those which guide us to avoid or escape from threat, and for functioning in daily life—systems that are primarily for seeking attractive stimuli in life that help us survive and feel well. This division is the basic form of structural dissociation of the personality. Trauma-related structural dissociation, then, is a deficiency in the cohesiveness and flexibility of the personality structure. This deficiency does not mean that the personality is completely split into different “systems of ideas and functions, ” but rather that there is a lack of cohesion and coordination among these systems that comprise the survivor’s personality.
We define structural dissociation of the personality as: a division of an individual’s personality, that is, of the dynamic, biopsychosocial system as a whole that determines his or her characteristic mental and behavioral actions. This division of personality constitutes a core feature of trauma. It evolves when the individual lacks the capacity to integrate adverse experiences in part or in full, can support adaptation in this context, but commonly also implies adaptive limitations. The division involves two or more insufficiently integrated dynamic but excessively stable subsystems.
These subsystems exert functions, and can encompass any number of different mental and behavioral actions and implied states. These subsystems and states can be latent, or activated in a sequence or in parallel. Each dissociative subsystem, that is, dissociative part of the personality, minimally includes its own, at least rudimentary first-person perspective.
More specifically, dissociation is a division among “systems of ideas and functions that constitute the personality”. When Janet spoke of “ideas,” he meant not only thoughts, but psychobiological complexes (systems) that included thoughts, affects, sensations, behaviors, memories, what we refer to as mental actions. And he implied that those systems of ideas and functions have their own sense of self, even if it is an extremely undeveloped one.
Even though Mitchell and McDougall spoke of “personalities,” close examination of their writing reveals that what they actually had in mind were dissociative parts of a single personality. The essence of their contributions is the idea that dissociative “systems of ideas and functions” are self-conscious and involve their own sense of self in patients with PTSD and other trauma-related disorders.
Even though dissociative parts have a sense of self, no matter how rudimentary, they are not separate entities, but rather are different, more or less divided psychobiological systems that are not sufficiently cohesive or coordinated within an individual’s personality. Inspired by Charles Myers, we have chosen to use “apparently normal part of the personality (ANP)” and “emotional part of the personality (EP)” to denote these different kinds of psychobiological systems. These systems are part of a single human being, so we have chosen to refer to the entire individual when he or she is directed by one of those unintegrated systems. Thus we say “the survivor as ANP or EP,” and when we speak about ANP or EP, this is what we have in mind.
The various types of action systems were mentioned briefly in the Introduction, and include two major categories: approach to the rewards and responsibilities of daily life, and avoidance and escape from physical threat. These psychobiological systems are sometimes referred to as motivational, behavioral, or emotional operating systems. We have called them action systems, because they help us to meet adaptive challenges through mental and behavioral action. In mentally healthy adults action systems of daily life and defense are integrated.
Action systems are quite complex, each consisting of at least two levels of components, with their own goals, motivations, and related action tendencies (Fanselow & Lester, 1988; Timberlake, 1994). We distinguish action subsystems, and within these subsystems, modes or motivational states. For example, the action system of energy regulation includes subsystems such as eating and sleep, each of which involves different goals toward the common end of maintaining energy.
In trauma-related structural dissociation of the personality, the coordination and cohesion of action systems appears to be disrupted. Normally, action systems are neither completely open nor closed to each other, as this would yield chaos or complete rigidity, respectively. They need to function interdependently with each other, with one being more dominant than others at a given time. They thus involve boundaries such as stimulus filters and degrees of reciprocal inhibition (e.g., attachment and defense inhibit each other). But in structural dissociation these boundaries become too rigid and closed between various action systems. Each dissociative part of the personality thus will be limited to a great degree by the constellation of action systems (or subsystems) by which it is mediated.
-Internal Family Systems:
Internal Family System (IF) is a therapeutic model that views every human being as a system of protective and wounded inner parts guided by a core Self. It teaches that the mind is naturally multiple—and that this multiplicity is healthy—because, like members of a family, inner parts can be pushed into extreme roles but also have valuable inherent qualities. IFS helps people access their undamaged, compassionate Self, which knows how to heal, and from that inner leadership, understand and transform their parts, fostering both inner and outer connectedness.
The Internal Family Systems (IFS) model is a non-pathologizing approach to individual psychotherapy developed by Richard C. Schwartz. It combines systems thinking with the view that the mind is composed of relatively discrete subpersonalities, or "parts," each with its own unique viewpoint and qualities. The goal of the therapy is to help clients access their "Self"—described as a core state of compassion and clarity that remains undamaged by trauma—to heal and integrate these parts.[ In 2015, IFS was listed on the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) as an evidence-based practice. A 2025 scoping review published in Clinical Psychologist identified IFS as a "promising therapeutic approach" for conditions such as PTSD, depression, and chronic pain, noting significant symptom reduction in pilot trials. It is frequently applied in the treatment of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD), anxiety, and depression.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is an approach to psychotherapy that identifies and addresses multiple sub-personalities or families within each person’s mental system. These sub-personalities consist of wounded parts and painful emotions such as anger and shame, and parts that try to control and protect the person from the pain of the wounded parts. The sub-personalities are often in conflict with each other and with one’s core Self, a concept that describes the confident, compassionate, whole person that is at the core of every individual. IFS focuses on healing the wounded parts and restoring mental balance and harmony by changing the dynamics that create discord among the sub-personalities and the Self.
-Systems 1 and 2 thinking-
PDF | This paper explores the dual-processing hypothesis of the mind, Systems 1 and 2, by examining debates between cognitive and evolutiona
This paper explores the dual-processing hypothesis of the mind, Systems 1 and 2, by examining debates between cognitive and evolutionary psychologists.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5344059/
Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking.
Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 popular science book by the Israeli-American psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Its main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
System 1 and System 2 thinking describes two distinct modes of cognitive processing introduced by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. System 1 is fast, automatic, and intuitive, operating with little to no effort. This mode of thinking allows us to make quick decisions and judgments based on patterns and experiences. In contrast, System 2 is slow, deliberate, and conscious, requiring intentional effort. This type of thinking is used for complex problem-solving and analytical tasks where more thought and consideration are necessary.
In 2011, Daniel Kahneman published Thinking, Fast and Slow, a book that brought behavioural science to a mass audience. Kahneman built on the work of psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West, who were the first to use the terms System 1 and System 2 to describe two types of cognitive process.
The labels of System 1 and System 2 are widely used in psychology, but I go further than most in this book, which you can read as a psychodrama with two characters.
Arguably the most famous theory in the behavioural science world was popularised by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and describes the process of ‘thinking fast and slow’ otherwise known as System 1 and System 2 thinking. This two-system model has been widely adopted due to its simplicity and intuitive nature. Nowadays, even if you don’t know anything about behavioural science, you’ve probably heard of Kahneman and would recognise the phrase System 1 and 2’.
-Complex Systems-
Humans are the ultimate complex systems. In this monograph intended for psychologists and social scientists interested in modeling psycholog
The book has three primary objectives: to provide a comprehensive overview of complex-systems research, with a particular emphasis on its applications in psychology and the social sciences; to provide skills for complex-systems research; and to foster critical thinking regarding the potential applications of complex systems in psychology.
A growing body of research highlights the limitations of traditional methods for studying the process of change in psychotherapy. The science of complex systems offers a useful paradigm for studying patterns of psychopathology and the development of more functional patterns in psychotherapy.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6701846/
The purpose of this work is to provide an overview of complex systems research for educational psychologists. We outline a philosophically and theoretically sourced definition of complex systems research organized around complex, dynamic, and emergent ontological characteristics that is useful and appropriate for educational psychology. A complex systems approach is positioned as a means to align underexplored elements of existing theory with appropriate interaction dominant theoretical models, research methods, and equation-based analytic techniques. We conclude with a brief discussion of several foundational topics for complex systems research in educational psychology.
As increasing criticism of psychiatry’s biomedical model surfaces, researchers and practitioners have refocused their attention on systemic factors contributing to human suffering. Sometimes called “social determinants of health,” these social, economic, and ecological factors work together in producing many of the afflictions that contemporary psychiatry and psychology aim to “treat.” Specific factors range from poverty, systemic racism, and social alienation linked to capitalism, immigration policies, and psychiatric coercion and oppression. Many researchers, aiming to get a better handle on these social determinants, draw on a “cybernetics” or “complex systems” understanding of how many different variables come together in complex ways to shape phenomena. The current editorial outlines some of the basic features of a “complex systems” approach to understanding psychopathology, emphasizing the fact that human suffering cannot be understood as resulting from a single underlying cause (such as neurochemistry).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
A complex system is a system composed of many components that interact with one another
-Dynamic Systems Theory-
A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action presents a comprehensive and detailed theory of early human developmen
A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action presents a comprehensive and detailed theory of early human development based on the principles of dynamic systems theory. Beginning with their own research in motor, perceptual, and cognitive development, Thelen and Smith raise fundamental questions about prevailing assumptions in the field. They propose a new theory of the development of cognition and action, unifying recent advances in dynamic systems theory with current research in neuroscience and neural development. In particular, they show how by processes of exploration and selection, multimodal experiences form the bases for self-organizing perception-action categories. Thelen and Smith offer a radical alternative to current cognitive theory, both in their emphasis on dynamic representation and in their focus on processes of change. Among the first attempt to apply complexity theory to psychology, they suggest reinterpretations of several classic issues in early cognitive development.
A central goal in developmental science is to explain the emergence of new behavioral forms. Researchers consider potential sources of behavioral change depending partly on their theoretical perspective. This chapter reviews one perspective, dynamic systems theory, which emphasizes the interactions among multiple components to drive behavior and developmental change. To illustrate the central concepts of dynamic systems theory, we describe empirical and computational studies from a range of domains, including motor development, the Piagetian A-not-B task, infant visual recognition, visual working memory capacity, and language learning. We conclude by advocating for a broader application of dynamic systems approaches to understanding cognitive and behavioral development, laying out the remaining barriers we see and suggested ways to overcome them.
Dynamic systems theory explains development as the probabilistic outcome of the interactions of processes at many levels and many systems. Its intellectual roots are traced to mathematics, astronomy, physics, meteorology, and biology. Contributions to the study of human development are introduced in the works of Esther Thelen who applied the theory to motor development, and Kurt W. Fischer and Thomas R. Bidell who applied it to cognitive development. Key concepts include systems, including open systems and the processes that preserve or undermine system stabilization; emergence; feedback; adaptive self-organization; nested timescales; disequilibrium; and the constructive web. The theory has informed analysis of dynamic skill development, parent-adolescent relationships, peer contagion, and antisocial development. The theory has guided multilevel interventions including effective support for school transitions. Approaches to measurement include case studies, mathematical simulation models, social network analysis, and state space grids. Strengths and limitations of dynamic systems theory are reviewed.
Dynamic systems theory and complexity theory (DST/CT) is a framework explaining how complex systems change and adapt over time. In psychotherapy, DST/CT can be used to understand how a person's mental and emotional state changes during therapy incorporating higher levels of complexity. This study aimed to systematically review the variability of DST/CT methods applied in psychotherapy research
Dynamic systems approaches are consistent with psychological theory. For example, Mischel and Shoda’s Cognitive-Affective Processing System of Personality (CAPS) conceptualizes personality as a dynamic system, rather than a set of stable, static, enduring traits that can be seen across situations. Instead, CAPS posits that personality is an open system which produces variability in behavior. The individual and the situation interact to produce behavior, and that behavior subsequently feeds back into the system to influence or change it over time. Additionally, rather than a person’s behavioral inconsistency reflecting measurement error or low validity of a personality trait, it reflects patterns of variation within a person.
Psychologists have been thinking in terms of dynamic systems for over a hundred years, but they haven’t translated this thinking into the kinds of experiments and research designs they use—until recently. In several corners of psychology, from research on motor control (how we can control our bodily movements) to research on social psychology (like how emotions change over time) to research on clinical psychology (like how symptoms are interrelated and change) to developmental psychology (like how children learn skills), dynamic systems are beginning to provide new insights. In the next generation of psychology research, I predict that an understanding of dynamic systems will characterize many of the most important conceptual breakthroughs.
-Cognitive-Affective Personality System-
The cognitive-affective personality system or cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) is a contribution to the psychology of personality proposed by Walter Mischel and Yuichi Shoda in 1995. According to the cognitive-affective model, behavior is best predicted from a comprehensive understanding of the person, the situation, and the interaction between person and situation.
In this article, we begin with a review of recent empirical data demonstrating that individuals are characterized not only by stable individual differences in their overall levels of behavior, but also by distinctive and stable patterns of behavior variability across situations. These findings invite a new conception of personality in which such patterns of variability are seen not as mere "error" but also as reflecting essential expressions of the same underlying stable personality system that produces the individual's characteristic average levels of behavior. Toward that goal, we propose a cognitive-affective system theory of personality, drawing in part on the growing body of evidence and theorizing on individual differences in social and emotional information processing. Consistent with contemporary findings and theorizing on the biological bases of human information processing, the theory assumes enduring individual differences in the features of situations that individuals select and the cognitive-affective mediating units (such as encodings and affects) that become activated, and that interact with and activate other mediating units (e.g., expectancies, goals, behavioral scripts and plans) in the personality system. This theory will be shown to take account of both the stability of the personality system and the variability of the individual's behaviors across situations in ways that reconcile numerous previously paradoxical findings and resolve basic controversies within personality and social psychology over many decades.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7740090/
A theory was proposed to reconcile paradoxical findings on the invariance of personality and the variability of behavior across situations. For this purpose, individuals were assumed to differ in (a) the accessibility of cognitive-affective mediating units (such as encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affects, and goals) and (b) the organization of relationships through which these units interact with each other and with psychological features of situations. The theory accounts for individual differences in predictable patterns of variability across situations (e.g., if A then she X, but if B then she Y), as well as for overall average levels of behavior, as essential expressions or behavioral signatures of the same underlying personality system. Situations, personality dispositions, dynamics, and structure were reconceptualized from this perspective.
This article outlines a conceptualization of personality as a cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) and explores its implications for understanding disorders and pursuing therapeutic change. The CAPS conception of personality was proposed in 1995 in order to resolve a long-standing paradox in personality and social psychology, namely, the apparent contradiction of, on the one hand, a core assumption about personality as stable and invariant across situations and, on the other hand, the empirical findings of behavioral variability. It was prompted by the demonstration that stable and characteristic patterns can be discerned in behavior variation, or “behavioral signatures,” and by a common theme from cognitive sciences that views the human mind as consisting of a stable and distinctive network of specific cognitions and affects. CAPS characterizes personality not simply by a set of thoughts and feelings highly assessible to an individual, but by the dynamic network of functional relations among the cognitions and affects, which guide and constrain their activation. After outlining the CAPS view of personality, this article will discuss how it relates to diverse existing models of anxiety and depression, approaches for measurement and case conceptualization as well as treatment methods, with the goal of clarifying the relationships among them by translating them into a common language provided by the CAPS framework.
-General Systems Theory (Systems Psychology)-
Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of systems, i.e., cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or artificial. Every system has causal boundaries, is influenced by its context, defined by its structure, function and role, and expressed through its relations with other systems. A system is "more than the sum of its parts" when it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_psychology
Systems psychology is a branch of both theoretical psychology and applied psychology that studies human behaviour and experience as complex systems. It is inspired by systems theory and systems thinking, and based on the theoretical work of Roger Barker, Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana and others. Groups and individuals are considered as systems in homeostasis. Alternative terms here are "systemic psychology", "systems behavior", and "systems-based psychology”
In the scientific literature, different kinds of systems psychology have been mentioned:
Applied systems psychology: In the 1970s the term applied systems psychology was being used as a specialism directly related to engineering psychology and human factor.
Cognitive systems theory: Cognitive systems psychology is a part of cognitive psychology and like existential psychology, attempts to dissolve the barrier between conscious and the unconscious mind.
Concrete systems psychology: Concrete systems psychology is the study of human systems across the varied biological contexts and situations of everyday life.
Contract-systems psychology: Contract-systems psychology is about the human systems actualization through participative organizations.
Family systems psychology: Family systems psychology is a more general name for the subfield of family therapists. Family therapists such as Murray Bowen, Michael E. Kerr, and Baard and researchers have begun to theorize a psychology of the family as a system.
Organismic-systems psychology: Through the application of organismic-systems biology to human behavior Ludwig von Bertalanffy conceived and developed the organismic-systems psychology, as the theoretical prospect needed for the gradual comprehension of the various ways human personalities may evolve and how they could evolve properly, being supported by a holistic interpretation of human behavior.
-Identity System-
An explanatory overview of identity as the structure through which experience is owned, organized, and integrated into a sense of self over
Identity within Psychological Architecture is a psychological system — a set of organizing processes that determine which experiences feel personally relevant, which interpretations feel acceptable, and which possibilities appear compatible with one's understanding of oneself. The identity system operates continuously and largely outside conscious awareness, shaping perception, judgment, and behavior through mechanisms that function whether or not the individual is attending to them.
The context is conceptualized in terms of information that elicits (emotional) responses in the individual (i.e., an identity experience), and can result in changes in identity commitments. This conceptualization is made explicit in the landscape of identity model (Van der Gaag et al., 2020) which defines identity as a system consisting of an individual’s commitments and processes of exploration, while the context is understood as a separate system that is selected by the individual and that elicits identity-related experiences in the identity system. Besides this conceptual separation, the separation between an individual’s identity and their context is also often reflected in the methodology employed. For instance, aspects of contexts (e.g., an emotional experience elicited by context) and identity (e.g., commitment strength) are operationalized as variables with (causal) associations that can be mapped statistically (for a more extensive analysis, see also De Ruiter, 2023).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5964/ps.6035
For the purposes of this paper, we see the main difference to be this: Personality is a thing; self is a perspective. Going back to Allport, psychologists have conceived of personality as an organized set or system of internal psychological features, mechanisms, and dynamic processes that spell out, influence, and/or mediate the person's characteristic manner of interacting with (and adapting to) the world. Whereas some conceptions of personality prioritize dispositional traits over all other constructs, others broaden the net to include social-cognitive variables, values, goals, motives, life stories, and other personalized processes and mechanisms.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5964/ps.6035
Personality is a thing; self is a perspective. Going back to Allport, psychologists have conceived of personality as an organized set or system of internal psychological features, mechanisms, and dynamic processes that spell out, influence, and/or mediate the person's characteristic manner of interacting with the world. Whereas some conceptions of personality prioritize dispositional traits over all other constructs, others broaden the net to include social-cognitive variables, values, goals, motives, life stories, and other personalized processes and mechanisms.
-Carl Jung-
Carl Jung's personality theory focuses on the interplay between the conscious and unconscious mind, universal archetypes, the process of ind
Carl Jung defined the psyche as the entirety of the human mind – both conscious and unconscious – encompassing thoughts, feelings, memories, and instincts. He believed the psyche seeks wholeness through self-discovery and balance, guiding personal growth and understanding. Like Freud (and Erikson), Jung regarded the psyche as made up of a number of separate but interacting systems. Ego: Your conscious mind— what you actively think about and experience day-to-day. It includes your thoughts, memories, emotions, and sense of self. Personal Unconscious: This part contains memories, feelings, and experiences that you’ve forgotten or suppressed but can still influence your behavior. Collective Unconscious: Shared by all humans, it contains universal experiences and symbolic meanings known as archetypes. These three components interact with each other and contribute to an individual’s overall personality and behavior.
Jung writes: ‘By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious’, so we use the term ‘psyche’ rather than ‘mind’, since mind is used in common parlance to refer to the aspects of mental functioning which are conscious. Jung maintained that the psyche is a self-regulating system (like the body).
The core of Carl Jung’s theory system was the belief that the whole of the individual’s experience should be respected and included, rather than aspects being pathologised or disavowed; this included the individual’s unwanted ‘shadow’ aspects – such as, for example, their aggressive, envious, destructive qualities, as well as their spiritual longings and experiences. Jung’s was a vision that embraced the heights and depths of human experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
Jung identified various archetypes in human psychology. These include events such as birth, death, and marriage; figures such as the mother, father, and child; and motifs such as the apocalypse and the deluge. Although the number of archetypes is limitless, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images, "the chief among them being" (according to Jung) "the shadow, the wise old man, the child, the mother ... and her counterpart, the maiden, and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman". Alternatively he would speak of "the emergence of certain definite archetypes ... the shadow, the animal, the wise old man, the anima, the animus, the mother, the child". The persona, anima and animus, the shadow, and the self are four of the archetypes that fall under the separate systems of the personality. [] The self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in people. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. According to Jung, this archetype manifests during middle age - the stage when all systems of the personality had developed and the individual is already concerned with his wholeness and self-fulfillment.
-Gray's biopsychological theory of personality-
Gray hypothesized the existence of three brain-based systems for controlling a person's interactions with their environment: the behavioural inhibition system (BIS) and the behavioural activation system (BAS), and the fight, flight, or freezing system (FFFS). BIS is related to sensitivity to punishment and avoidance motivation. BAS is associated with sensitivity to reward and approach motivation. FFFS is associated with sensitivity to fear and how an individual responds to it. There is evidence that the Behavioral Inhibition and Behavioral Activations system are connected to mood control, with positive or negative emotions occurring when rewarded or punished. Those with a relatively high BAS are said to be extroverted and outgoing while those with a high BIS tend to be more reserved and introverted. Psychological scales have been designed to measure these hypothesized systems and study individual differences in personality. Neuroticism, a widely studied personality dimension related to emotional functioning, is positively correlated with BIS scales and negatively correlated with BAS scales.
Proposed by psychologist Jeffrey Gray, this theory focuses on the brain systems that influence how we respond to rewards and punishments. Instead of looking only at outward traits, Gray examined the neurological processes that drive our behavior. The theory revolves around three main systems: The Behavioral Approach System (BAS), which motivates us to seek out rewards. The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), which alerts us to potential threats or punishment. The Fight, Flight, or Freeze System (FFFS), which controls how we respond to danger. These systems work together to shape our behavior in everyday life. For example, someone with a highly active BAS might be adventurous and willing to take risks, while someone with a stronger BIS may be more cautious and hesitant.
One of the major neuropsychological models of personality, developed by world-renowned psychologist Professor Jeffrey Gray, is based upon individual differences in reactions to punishing and rewarding stimuli. This biological theory of personality – now widely known as ‘Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory’ (RST) – has had a major influence on motivation, emotion and psychopathology research. In 2000, RST was substantially revised by Jeffrey Gray, together with Neil McNaughton, and this revised theory proposed three principal motivation/emotion systems: the ‘Fight-Flight-Freeze System’ (FFFS), the ‘Behavioural Approach System’ (BAS) and the ‘Behavioural Inhibition System’ (BIS). This is the first book to summarize the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of personality and bring together leading researchers in the field. It summarizes all of the pre-2000 RST research findings, explains and elaborates the implications of the 2000 theory for personality psychology, and lays out the future research agenda for RST
Gray’s Biopsychological Theory of Personality is rooted in the intricate interplay between the brain’s neural systems and an individual’s behavior. At its core, the theory suggests that personality traits and behaviors can be attributed to underlying neural mechanisms that regulate how individuals respond to stimuli and make decisions. The Theory’s Components:
Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS): Gray’s theory postulates the existence of the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), which is responsible for processing threats and potential punishments. Individuals with a highly sensitive BIS are more likely to display traits such as anxiety and avoidance behavior when confronted with uncertain or potentially threatening situations.
Behavioral Activation System (BAS): On the other hand, the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) is responsible for processing rewards and potential pleasures. People with a dominant BAS tend to exhibit traits like impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and optimism, as they are more inclined to pursue rewarding experiences.
Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS): Gray’s theory also incorporates the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), which is closely associated with immediate responses to danger. This system is responsible for activating behaviors like aggression, escape, or immobility in response to perceived threats.
-The meanings and usage of “system” in literature around non-traumagenic multiplicity itself:
-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.
https://tmgonline.nl/articles/10.18146/tmg.896
-Among them are people who identify not as one whole self, but as a system of plural personalities, often labeled as dissociative identity disorder (DID).
-Among them are people who consider themselves not as one whole integrated personality, but as a system of multiple personalities. Often labeled with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) or OSDD (Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder), these new social media creators contribute their own voices to an extensive network of YouTube channels, which is itself part of a network of online groups that have contributed to the emergence of a plural community and a plural culture.1 In 2018, more than 23,000 users of various global online platforms voted for the umbrella term plurals as a more inclusive term for all kinds of experiences of plural identities.
-The psychiatric literature marks the following elements as extreme: a high number of alters with very different or dramatic identities (who all know each other), subsystems within the system, fictional personalities and plurals who do not consider themselves disordered or do not wish to integrate into one personality.
-Plurality is thus a subset of multiplicity defined primarily by one’s personal and explicit belief that he is but one of ‘a co-embodied group of people’ manifesting within a single human being; such a collectivity is, within the plural community, commonly called a ‘system’.
-In marked contrast, those resident in plural systems are most often co-aware, commonly report constructive internal communication, and may even concurrently share agentic control of the body. Furthermore, the system’s ‘original’ personality, where present is not eclipsed by its other members, but partakes in the system alongside them. While a level of transience can exist in plural systems, the experience of plurality is just as often long-term, echoing a main point of distinction between spirit possession and dissociative identity disorder.
-Countering the clinical view, others have decried what they allege are attempts at the medicalization of plurality. This position is well represented within the plural community, where many ‘endogenic’ systems refute clinical expectations of underlying trauma. Further, even among trauma-based systems, many experience no distress or impairment on account of their plurality, and thus neither consider themselves to be disordered, nor see integration as a therapeutic goal.
-As with its superordinate phenomenon of multiplicity, plurality exists on a continuum, and the ways it manifests in any given system are diverse. In some cases, control over the body, and thus the system’s presentation to the outside world, is shared among some or all members, with different members assuming that control, or ‘fronting,’ at any given time. In others, a single ‘host’ may both control and identify with the body, while subsidiary members - though personally and mentally autonomous - do not, and indeed may not even regard the system’s physical body as ‘theirs’. The ages, genders, and other personal characteristics of those cohabiting in a given body will vary, as will their number, with some systems even reporting multiple thousands of members. The degree to which consciousness is shared within a system also varies, ranging from intermittent (or even persistent) co-consciousness to common access to memory and interpersonal (but intra-system) communication. Opposing clinical expectations of dissociative identity disorder, amnesia is rare, and persons in a plural system are usually naturally aware of one another, possessing a sense of self both as an individual and as a member of a shared bodily system.
-While the academic study of plurality is yet only in its infancy, it shall be greatly benefited by learning from the history and trajectory of transgender studies, and adopting a paradigm of respect for and acceptance of the lived experiences of plural systems that fosters a reciprocal trust between those systems, clinicians, and researchers. One does not need to believe the personhood claims of the individual members of plural systems to accept that they subjectively experience themselves as people. It may well turn out that, as the Dawkinses quote Douglas Hofstadter in surmising, ‘a person is a point of view.’
-It does not, of course, replace these models, and they may remain preferable to members of plural systems who are partial to a secular, psychological view of their experiences. Nevertheless, it remains the case that many who experience plurality are less concerned by the particulars of its origins than by living well as a plural system.
https://pubs.sciepub.com/rpbs/5/2/1/index.html
-Survey participants were confirmed to be practitioners of tulpamancy by answering the question, “Does your system practice tulpamancy and/or have a tulpa?” with the option yes and no. Respondents who answered “no” skipped the subsequent questions and were directed to the end of the survey. Respondents who answered “yes” were directed to more questions inquiring their specific practices and experiences with tulpas.
-To investigate the effect of meditative practices often performed alongside tulpamancy, the survey asks: “Please select all the techniques that are/ have been used by your system for tulpamancy”, with meditation and hypnosis being among the possible responses.
-The notion of tulpas being intimate, trustworthy companions can also explain the association between tulpas and improvements in mental health. An overwhelming majority of tulpamancers develop strong and intimate bonds with their systemmates. Hosts consistently describe how their tulpas keep their best interests in mind and take steps to alleviate any ailments, mental or physical, that the host may have in their life. If a disorder is causing distress and one’s tulpa happens to be independent from it (as they are, to some degree, in 85% of cases), then we would expect to see what we already observe: tulpas helping their host cope with mental illness.
-There are reports of tulpas alleviating the desire to perform irrational routines in individuals diagnosed with OCD, and others claim that their tulpas innovated workarounds for their dyslexia. A system with DID even detailed how making a tulpa improved their functioning and ability to work together because the tulpa was unaffected by amnesia and could communicate otherwise unattainable information between alters.
-They can have different likes and dislikes, different styles, different speech patterns or accents, different sexualities, different genders, different manners of processing emotions, different memories, and different internal conceptions of what their physical appearance should be (which often differs from what the body looks like). A collection of alters that belongs to a single “person” is called a system.
-As such, the identity of being “plural” or being “multiple” is also used by groups of people who do not have DID or OSDD. There are people who have no known childhood trauma or accompanying PTSD who identify as plural. It’s not clear if there’s anything that causes this pattern or if brains are just different sometimes. There are people who were formerly diagnosed with DID who have undergone significant treatment and no longer experience it as a disorder but are still plural in the way their mind is structured. Among the many kinds of folks who identify as plural or as “a system,” many use we/us pronouns to refer to themselves and use they/them plural for other people to refer to them.
-In plural identity or multiplicity, the alters refer to themselves as “headmates” or “system mates.” They are co-conscious of each other, and they generally remember the events that happen during a day. Presumably there’s less strongly partitioned memory, and the person can function in day-to-day life, work, and relationships. This contrasts with DID, where there are memory gaps.
-IFST posits that all of us contain within us entire tribes of fully formed personalities (“parts”) that ideally work together much like a plural system. When they are not getting along, there are symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Therapy involves identifying and sorting out the relationships between parts.
https://di.org.au/
-For many people with multiplicity there are also struggles with intense trauma or abuse issues. Many people also meet the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Not everyone with multiplicity has a trauma history. For some people the trauma issues and multiplicity are tangled in ways that make them hate the multiplicity or see the parts as ‘the problem’. Some people find that their multiplicity resolves as they work on the trauma issues or get away from abusive situations. Others find that their systems work much better as a connected and caring group as trauma issues are worked on and abusive dynamics replaced.
As explained earlier: the term ‘system’ isn't, and was never meant to be, exclusive to traumagenic CDD systems. ‘System’ and ‘CDD’ refer to two different things, and there is no harm in endogenic systems referring to themselves as systems.
A system is, to condense everything into one definition, a group of parts. The parts that make up a traumagenic system are typically traumagenic parts. The parts that make up a endogenic system are typically endogenic parts. Likewise, mixed-origins systems have mixed types of parts, while traumaendo systems have both traumagenic and endogenic parts making up their system. CDD systems typically have disordered parts, or parts that deal with daily distress/dysfunction in some way.
That's really it. CDDs and systems aren't the same thing. CDDs are exclusive, and systems are not.
Hi can I pls have legit sources for how people without trauma can somehow be systems 😵💫
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
it's in our pinned post, all over our profile, you can find it on almost every post we make, and you can look through our posts tagged 'syscourse' or 'guardians syscourse' if you want descriptions/explanations beyond straight links! /nm
Medical & Non-Medical (Endogenic) System Sources By Guardians System, a diagnosed traumagenic DID system with PTSD and CPTSD You’re welcome
┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)
(also this will be our secret announcement that we're 1. making a second document more focused on trauma and CDDs because this one is lagging our phone, 2. making a google storage drive to backup/save/store everything we have so it's all in one place, and 3. very long post coming soon to the syscourse tags near you)
