#mudtalk

Or, "I have met people where the ability to adapt as a system, to change as needed, is much healthier for them. They shouldn't be forced to adhere to what a psychologist thinks signifies stability."

Good news: that system is stable.

Every system that does not experience constant bouts of sudden, unwanted and distressing change is stable. The opposite of stable is not stagnant, the opposite of stable is volatile.

As I'm sure you've seen, a post has been going around equating systems that rarely split to stable systems. This is inaccurate, as it alienates a large portion of systems – CDD formed systems in particular – and their struggles. In this post, we aim to pitch forth our own idea on what constitutes stability, in a more comprehensive, logical, medical, and accommodating definition.

To us, stability doesn't necessarily mean no splitting ever, our brain (as is the case for typically presenting systems who were formed by the effects of CDDs) have had these pathways formed. We can't "unsystem" ourselves– when times are hard, we WILL split. Stability, to us, means being able to manage life as a system without significant distress. By our measures, less stress = less splits, and as such we tend to associate these two points. However, we also have a sharp increase in alter dormancy around stress times, and a near complete cease of internal communication. "Swiss cheesing" - a term we colloquially use to refer to memories bleeding through dissociative barriers during gray outs - becomes much rarer, almost never occuring. We therefore associate higher alter communication with stability.

But we are not the only system out there. Different methods of achieving stability are valid, accepted and celebrated– even if they split. For example, one stable system may have fruitful internal communication, a fleshed out headspace and so on and so forth– using these to foster a safe and welcoming system environment to new members, to make the new alter experience less terrifying. Another stable system may not currently have the ability to communicate in these ways, but they're able to understand their system without a need for immediate contact (backlogs, note-sending, pluralkit profiles, system trees, journaling, diary-keeping, communicating through friends, etc.) And can achieve the same thing the first system did, through different methods. These hypothetical systems still experience splits, but we would consider them stable. Criteria is discussed further on.

To continue my point, functional multiplicity is considered a stable system unit. These systems still split, but their dissociative barriers are notably lower, they've got improved coordination and communication compared to pre-FM, and yet they still split new members if needed. Splitting is an aspect of life. It doesn't translate to instability.

So what DOES signify instability?

Instability, at its core, is consistently negative unpredictability. Being volatile, at risk of being immolated at the drop of a hat, isn't a comfortable existence. It's stressful, unhealthy. Stress has a high likelihood of causing health problems.

Instability is not a positive modifier, at least not to us. Instability can be being bedridden because your little was triggered out and has become catatonic. Instability can be not being able to reach any member of your system in a time of great distress, feeling isolated and helpless. Instability can be persecutors trying to protect you by lashing out at your friends, thinking you're at risk, because your abuser is still in your life. Instability can be uncooperative headmates. Instability can be increased memory loss.

But please, don't take this as us dictating specific occaisons and events are signs of instability. Every system has a baseline, and system hosts need to be aware of said baseline. Like how for us anticipating a split because of a trauma anniversary does not make us unstable, but a specific trauma anniversary causing multiple splits is a red flag.

Therefore, we – the host and closely related members – arrive to the following conclusions when defining general stability;

Stable systems understand their... Systems. They're mostly aware of what is typical, and what is atypical. This requires years of work, hence the emphasis on mostly. You don't need to know everything, but knowing everything is far superior to being in the dark.

Stable systems know their limits, their wants, their needs, and advocate for themselves. They are comfortable with one another, or able to tolerate one another's presence in a cordial fashion. Sudden and abrupt conflicts aren't frequent, because a stable system communicates.

Stable systems have the ability to communicate internaly, have select alters go dormant, rapid-switch, or do whichever activity that enables them to safely and comfortably shoulder a stressful event. Any byproducts of said event are not to be taken as a sign of instability.

Stable systems may split. Splitting is not bad. Splitting is not unstable. Splitting is a fact of life, and it's not evil or malicious.

Now, this ↑↑ is not diagnostic criteria. It's not meant to be followed to a T. Stability and instability are, to us, two sides of a spectrum, and one can move from point to point at any time. This is normal. You can be a partially unstable, partially stable system– we are one! At the end of the day, we can't tell you what to be, this is just our opinion.

From experience, we don't recommend embracing instability because it's "not stagnation". That's just... Dumb. Go play touhou if you don't want stagnation, it sure will spice up your life. But also, we don't believe systems who understand themselves, who accommodate their members' needs, who do their best to make it through every day, are unstable.

From the start it was just emotional reply after emotional reply and it's stupid it even escalated this far– but there's one thing that pisses me off the most here, and it's the claim of "YOUR WORDS MADE MY PARANOIA ACT UP AND THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY."

No, actually, it is NOT their responsibility if your paranoia is making you panic. The internet doesn't censor itself for you, you're obligated to curate your experience. If you can't handle the pressures that come with directing harassment towards others (yes, that's literally what a blocklist does, very few people who read said blocklists "quietly block and move on", most turn it into gossip and spread the accusations around), then don't incite harassment. That's all.

Mudrock • 22 • DID system • pharm.d major • very tired

Before you follow: DNI

about:

collection of dumbasses with too many opinions for own good. Due to country laws and ISP limitations we need a VPN to access tumblr so we're not very active. Expect a lot of queued posts. Original posts are under #mudtalk.

We sign off posts when we can with #[name] tags.

art/fandom blog • ao3 •