#lb-lee

Godfuckingdammit I forgot that DDNOS got divided into UDD and OSDD. STOP CONFUSING ME DSM

personally i like the -NOS -> U- + OS- divide. :V it makes sense to say that "not yet sure” and “not quite fitting criteria” are different things. one is just pragmatic, “welp gotta put something on the paperwork,” while the other really is its own sort of specified; DDNOS-1 referred to something specific that was not the same as DDNOS-2, etc.

of course, OSDD-1 still can mean “not yet sure”, since “is multiple” is sufficient reason to boot someone out of UDD and into OSDD-1. i know there are still some folks who pretty explicitly say that there are two types of OSDD-1, “not yet DID [but is “actually” DID and will be diagnosed as such once alters and the extent of amnesia are more recognized]” and “almost/partial/not quite DID [because no amnesia or not fully separate alters]”

(even better, we have seen this divide referred to as -1a vs. -1b before, with the assumption that any significant amnesia means that DID is an appropriate diagnosis, and that the only reason that alters would seem “not fully separate” but still amnesic is because of either 1) too strict/stereotypical a definition of what ‘separate’ means or 2) said alters just haven’t made themselves known yet, especially if the doctor is going by the (now outdated) rule that they must personally observe switching. i can’t find my source right now, but i imagine it’s Paul Dell, seeing as he’s pretty outspoken against the “distinct personalities” language in the DSM)

it’s confusing but boy i could talk about -NOS-type categories for a while :V

Well played, well said, and HILARIOUS to me since I've known y'all for a bit.

lb-lee replied to your post “@sunset-feathers, but also to anyone else who is reading this from...”

Er, obviously people being dicks isn't funny.

replied to your

post

:

didfrisk replied to your post : ...

I love how these purely philosophical concepts are now being used to actually crush the folks they’re supposed to help. Ideas should serve people, not the other way around.

Yeah. It’s sort of baffling.

Like... my life... happened. If people say “That doesn’t happen, if it happened it would violate x ideology and be bad, so it doesn’t happen!” But it happened... according to them, what am I supposed to do? Often seems like the only answer or thing that would please people is “stop existing, you’re existing wrong!” which is 1. an asshole move and 2. impossible, it’s not like I can go “oh, I see my life is ideologically wrong and impossible according to you, my entire life and history will now poof out of existence”.

Also being told I’m ableist against autistic people when I am autistic and talking about my own experiences is kind of ridiculous. Not that autistic people can’t be ableist! Just... I actually said in my own post that I don’t want to say my multiplicity is trauma-caused because that would be saying autism is traumatic to me, and I hate the idea of saying that. But apparently it’s a catch-22. If I say it’s not trauma-based, I’m a fakey fakerson, how dare. If I do say it’s trauma-based, I’m saying autism is traumatic, how dare. *shrug* But no matter the interpretation, it is a thing that happened to me... and I can’t make it not be a thing that happened to me... because it happened.

Dude we should watch Heathers together it’ll be great.

Huh. That's not awkward and jargony at all.

What’s a parser?

FFXIV has no way to see what kind of dps you’re putting out in the game.  This is deliberate, as Yoshi-P and company have said they don’t want it being used to abuse people who’re more casual.

People have third party add-on parsers anyway, largely people who play in more hardcore raid settings.  While no one says much about it, it IS illegal to have these parsers.  It’s considered cheating.

This douchecanoe decided he was going to shame the group he was in by posting the parser log before jetting out of the instance.  Like ‘haha look at what scrubs you guys are’ when the group was largely compiled of casual players who just wanted to get to the next part of the storyline.

In this case, however, the players in question were all from the same FC, and decided to report him since he decided to be an asshole to us.

I still don’t understand where or when this theory came from and why it suddenly seems a huge thing but only on tumblr.

well, The Book about it, The Haunted Self, is from 2006. it seems pretty well-received in the academic world, at least. but it’s certainly not without its criticisms and alternative theories? since,  y’know, that’s how science works. so, at least in the papers I read, it’s pretty commonly cited -- though, usually just as a “so here’s a bunch of things about the way we think DID & trauma work” (so, y’know, a scientific theory), not like specific engagement with what makes an ANP or an EP, secondary vs tertiary, etc., the way tumblr seems to engage with it.

my guess is that it was used by some blogs to explain things like “no not every system has a core” and “multiplicity is first a failure to integrate rather than a splitting of a singlet original”, plus DID/OSDD-1′s connections with BPD and CPTSD. but then, due to lack of access to its detractors and belief in a Single Medical Model, tumblr took it as Absolute Goddamn Irrefutable Fact that must be made entirely relevant to every system’s life otherwise you’re Doing Multiplicity Wrong -- ‘ANP’ and ‘EP’ suddenly becoming system roles that you see alongside ‘protector’ and ‘host’.

and so now that there’s a Theory to Cite, there’s some sort of added authority there. you wouldn’t believe the amount of times we’ve seen “endogenic multiplicity isn’t real because the theory of structural dissociation!”, as if the basis of DID research wasn’t already founded on “multiplicity = traumagenic” beforehand? (and extra funny having found Nijenhuis’ disclaimer that structural dissociation was never about non-traumagenic experiences, oops)

(the OSDD-1a/-1b split is similarly amusing/bemusing. engaged with very differently on tumblr than in the scientific literature they’re supposedly citing. (we actually found a post of mine approx two years ago where i express surprise that someone used the subcategories lmao. caring about that difference apparently happened fast.))

Neither title rings familiar, so it’s probably something involving van der Kolk otherwise. Still haven’t read him.

Oh also just found “The Body Never Lies" by Alice Miller (the Drama of the Gifted Child person). 

these bodies sure are busy