lb-lee replied to your post: âUDD systemâ is such a weird phrase isnât it ...
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 sureâ and ânot quite fitting criteriaâ are different things. one is just pragmatic, âwelp gotta put something on the paperwork,â 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 ânot yet sureâ, since âis multipleâ 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, ânot yet DID [but is âactuallyâ DID and will be diagnosed as such once alters and the extent of amnesia are more recognized]â and âalmost/partial/not quite DID [because no amnesia or not fully separate alters]â
(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 ânot fully separateâ but still amnesic is because of either 1) too strict/stereotypical a definition of what âseparateâ means or 2) said alters just havenât made themselves known yet, especially if the doctor is going by the (now outdated) rule that they must personally observe switching. i canât find my source right now, but i imagine itâs Paul Dell, seeing as heâs pretty outspoken against the âdistinct personalitiesâ language in the DSM)
itâs confusing but boy i could talk about -NOS-type categories for a while :V
- Ace













