#requested info

right, neurogenic. i have seen many different definitions of "neurogenic". one being trauma caused by neurodiversity, the other being a system caused by a disorder other than DID/OSDD.

one of those is valid, the other is not.

having trauma from being neurodivergent (or due to other things related to it, like being undiagnosed, being bullied, ect) is completely valid and though i find using the term suspicious that doesn't mean they're faking.

but thinking you're a system because you're autistic or because you have any disorder that isn't DID or OSDD isn't valid.

system is an alternate term for someone with DID/OSDD. it does not refer to anything other than "a personality system of dissociative identities" (referring to alters).

you cannot have alters if you don't have DID/OSDD as alters have literally only been recorded as a symptom of DID/OSDD, no other known disorder causes alters.

not even maladaptive daydreaming disorder can cause alters, before anyone tries to claim that could be a valid thing :

" in DID/OSDD, people have multiple dissociative parts to their personality, which may feel either like different sides or aspects of them (e.g., "me but a different me") or may feel totally different to them (e.g., "not me", like having "multiple personalities" that physically take control of their body), [21] but in maladaptive daydreaming the inner characters and their interactions are purely fantasy, e.g., intricate plots with characters who act out ongoing themes or stories, often with an idealized version of the self or feeling like the narrator "

" The information here on types of alters is relevant only to alters; the differences between the inner characters found in maladaptive daydreaming and alters found in DID/OSDD1 can be found on the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale page. Inner characters in MD do not follow the same subjective logic or creation/fusion rules as alters caused by DID "

theres not much else i have to say other than i don't like the term. as even with the valid definition you could literally just say you're traumagenic or if you don't like that term just say you're a system, as systems only form from trauma.

though if you do not have DID/OSDD or you claim to have it without trauma then stay out of our communities and stop using our terms. you are not a system.

https://www.tumblr.com/alyssasmaddworld/741046067507904512/theres-this-level-of-dissociation-that-goes-hand?source=share

i- this post is a lot, but i'll try deconstruct each point here.. i'll be focusing on points that i can debate here / can disprove or try to disprove here because otherwise this will be a really long post,, longer than it already is. also i'll be referring to maladaptive daydreaming as MD for simplicity's sake. if i get any information on MD wrong please let me know as i do not have this disorder(?) nor do i know much about it outside of the research done for this post.

the source linked here does say that it is a dissociative disorder and it does say that it might not be caused purely by trauma " Although trauma may be one causal factor, we indicate several other etiological pathways to the development of MD. We discuss associations with related concepts and suggest directions for future research " so there isn't much for me to say here other than the part about plurality, but we'll go more into depth on that below.

this.. the source they used is pluralpedia.. which used the source of a tumblr blog.. so lets get into this. the first source also mentions maladaptive characters / MD characters but it also says that it is not like DID " We discuss and exemplify with clinical vignettes the shared phenomenological characteristics between MD and dissociative phenomena, such as double consciousness, vivid visual imagery, and the creation of internally narrated characters. MD characters can be experienced as somewhat independently-agentic, although unlike dissociative identity disorder (DID), they typically do not take control over the daydreamer’s behavior "

so lets look into MD characters, shall we? the only source i can find on MD characters ((other than the one they linked / tumblr posts)) consider them more of a form/type of daydreaming (experiencing the daydream as yourself or as a character, daydreaming about a character, ect). these characters are not at all similar to alters and the "closest" i found was the foreign character

" For those who heavily engage in maladaptive daydreaming, they often will begin to develop "The Foreign Character" type of maladaptive daydreaming. In this type, you daydream about a central character who you believe is yourself, but who is fundamentally different in almost all respects. " — maladaptivedaydreaming.org

however these are not at all similar to alters which are

"  two or more separate identities called “alters.” They control your behavior at various times. Each alter has its own personal history, traits, likes, and dislikes " — WebMD

the same source on foreign characters also states that " The reality is that for most people, they engage in these kinds of daydreams because they want to daydream about things entirely devoid from themselves and their real world experience. They don't want to daydream about themselves being a doctor or being better looking (to use the prior examples I used), but instead they want to dream about themselves being entirely different people so they can escape from who they really are. ". other than that source there is very little evidence on these characters being separate identities, even then it's important to keep in mind that it is not the same as having a split identity as it only appears during daydreams i would assume and would not be able to control you, how you think, how you behave, ect. ((which the first source literally said,, do endos even read their sources??)) i would also like to add that if these characters feel real and you believe all your daydreams to be real then it might actually be a delusion. there's nothing wrong with having delusions but it is also important to recognise that it's not real and that it does not at all compare to being a system.

the first source they used to claim that having MD is the same as being plural is a pro endo source, it defines being plural as " The most simplified definition of the term plural that includes all people who take the label is “someone who shares the same physical body with other individuals.”  Such a group is sometimes referred to as a system, though many plural groups use different terminology. " which,, again having daydreams are is not the same as having separate identities, so really this source means nothing.. and the second source is.. just insane really. its a study done on the experiences of those with multiple identities. they did two things, one was an online survey that had 200-300 results and then 6 interviews.. which is definitely not enough evidence, since they cannot know if people are lying on those online surveys and 6 people are not enough to make it a reliable source. but lets focus on the part they pointed out, which was:

" Empirical measurement of multiplicity is sparse. The first inventory published in the field was the Plural Self Scale (Altrocchi, 1999), which assesses the structure of the personality. High scores indicate that thoughts and feelings are different through time and situations. The other inventory to assess multiplicity was developed by Carter (2008) and consists of 20 items, such as “Does your handwriting change noticeably at different times?” or “Do you swing suddenly from one mood to another for no apparent reason?.” However, these scales measure the integrity of the self and rely on the assumption that there is a “you” or “I” who is able to self-reflect. Individuals who consider themselves multiple refer to themselves as a group of selves (“we”). Thus, questionnaires that assess the extent of self-integration fail to assess the experience of individuals who claim to have multiple selves who all have different thoughts, feelings, motivations, and levels of complexity. " which-- just isn't much of a criteria other than the questions, of which are "does your handwriting change at different times" and " do you swing from one mood to another with no apparent reason", but it literally says this fails to asses those who claim to be plural-- so i don't see what their point was here really. it just seems like they're saying words for the sake of saying words.

i don't think this person realises what closed culture is.. tulpulmacy is not a form of being plural nor should it be considered that, thoughtforms are usually used purely for meditation or for your spiritual journey, not for fun,, unlike "tupla systems" which are often not even Buddhists, which is the main issue. a closed practise, which is what tulpulmacy is, is a "practice in which you can only take part in their craft if you were specifically born into the practice, or went through an initiation process.". while i'm not 100% sure what exactly they mean with the last part there isn't much for me to say here other than the fact that tulpulmacy is not the same as being plural and we did have a former Buddhist actually talk to us about this here! and while it isn't exactly sourced i feel its still an important read.

i believe they're speaking about the word plural here,, which wasn't made by endos?? the word plural just refers to more then one. unless they mean traumagenic?? which then confuses me because their source doesn't really mention it--

culture is dynamic yes, but some cultures are closed and it's important to understand that-- just because the culture is shifting doesn't mean you can steal closed practises.

"endogenic sphere" makes me shiver but okay, lets talk about this too. there isn't a lot of research on MD, so i cannot say what the direct cause is. "Experts don’t know exactly why maladaptive daydreaming happens. However, they suspect it happens because maladaptive daydreaming can be a coping mechanism for problems like anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions."

no?? what?? as i said above, many times, having MD is not the same as having DID / being a system and also the image only refers to feeling disconnected from the body and sense of identity which is pretty common with dissociation and doesn't exactly prove anything related to endogenic systems..

i- ?? i mean as i said before we don't know what exactly causes MD but i don't believe people chose to do this?? not really??

" maladaptive daydreaming is often compulsive, which means a person feels like they need to do it. Because the need to daydream is similar to an addiction, daydreaming more often can make it a strong habit, so it’s very hard to stop doing it. That’s why seeking mental healthcare for it sooner rather than later is important. "

So sorry if this is worded wrong or weirdly!!!!

techincally the term for the "original" is core, but the term core is very debated,, it has been used by people but whether a "core" exists or not is argued over " There is currently a debate over the existence of cores because it does not easily fit with the theory of structural dissociation. Not all systems have a part that could be identified as a core. "

the idea of a core doesn't completely fit with the theory of how DID forms, since if we go off the theory of structural dissociation there would be no "original" or "first" alter (as before alters are formed it'd just be fragments / parts of an identity, not a integrated identity,, if that makes sense?)

it kind of depends how you refer to it / how you use the term core. i would say that overall, the term is disliked since it goes against the theory of structural dissociation,, though did-research.org says that a core could be fit into it as; "one has to examine the theory as it exists on a spectrum to conceptualize how an early failure of integration could still allow one part to integrate before others." which i guess could make sense in a way? it depends.

really its more of a personal thing i think,, most systems don't like the term but if you like it i can't stop you from using it. there's not much else to say. ((also calling them the original is also widely disliked too, but its pretty much the same thing))

it is possible! we know this from experience as lots of our own alters have multiple roles but also i have sources say alters can have multiple roles too :

" In smaller systems particularly, alters might hold multiple roles, some of which may even at first seem contradictory. For example, an alter might be persecutory to the system yet strive to protect it from outsiders. "

" Alters can hold multiple roles, and systems may not have alters that fulfill roles that other systems have. "

Yeah! There's not a lot of information on romantic relationships specifically out there but there is an article ((unsure if that's what it's called)) that does bring up relations within a system being similar to relationships outside of the system

“ Forming relationships with alters in dissociative identity disorder (DID) isn't much different from forming social relationships. For example, we have close relationships and distant relationships, relationships built on open communication and relationships that seem to be closed off. Those same complexities exist in the relationships people with DID have with their alters. ” — healthyplace

While we can't find any Information on it we do know from experience that it's relatively common for alters to form relationships of some form, whether it be platonic, romantic, ect. This can be healing for many systems and can help with intergrating! There are many examples of this in the community and really it just depends on the system.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but that's what it seemed like you thought I meant/nm

that still falls under core,, in some defintions

and it still goes against the theory of structural dissociation. unless you happen to be referring to the body? which is just the body, there isn't another term for it.

"The theory of Structural Dissociation works off of the assumption that no one is born with an integrated personality. Instead, infants operate based off of a loose collection of different ego states that handle their different needs- feeding, attachment to a caregiver, exploring the world around them." - this means there is no "first" person, theres just parts. there is no one to split off by this point.

"Over time, these ego states naturally integrate into one coherent and cohesive personality, usually by the ages of 6 or 9. However, childhood trauma disrupts this process. Different ego states are left unable to merge with each other due to conflicting needs, traumatic memories, or learned action paths or responses to trauma." - this is how alters are first formed / how the system comes into existence. they do not split off something, they just do not merge. ((though alters after the first formation of the system will split))