#science rambles

Firstly, there really isn't much of a point in saying if XYZ thing in DID is real or not for many basis.

1) The fundamental idea of structural dissociation as a theory is a lot more recognized as a clinical useful tool and perspective than it is a scientifically backed and proven mechanism for how DID works. Most clinicians / clinical researchers work with structural dissociation as a model because it seems to typically work well with patients and seem to be something that really helps progress treatment, which as far as psych research and specifically DID research - being as young as they are - is actually very good and should not be minimized at all. However, if you were to talk to the more science and theory and neurology / behaviorally focused psych researchers who don't aim to balance practicality for the patient with actual real hard facts and data (Developmental Psychologists, Memory Researchers, etc), they really do tend to laugh at the theory with how unscientific and unlikely it is as an overall theory to be the correct idea. One of the largest being the concept of Occam Razor which pretty much is the short way of saying "This makes WAY too many leaps and assumptions and sounds way too out there from what we currently know to be accurate, it is always more likely that the most simple answer is the right one until evidence is proven otherwise.

Particularly memory researchers in the fact that one of the large issues / controversies of debate in memory is if it is even possible to have repressed memories and if there is any laboratory evidence of the ability to suppress (yes there is) but also to recall it. Which is a very very very annoying thing if you are coming from a practical more clinical perspective because saying there "is no ability to have repressed memories" doesn't help someone who is claiming to experience it and this whole mess. There is A LOT of a LONG vent I could go on about the absurdity of the way I've heard PhD professors and lab managers discussing the topic casually that gets really nuanced, but I'm saying this as an anchor and view point to how I see it when I say "There is no point in claiming if things are or are not real in DID" when the more hard scientifically backed individuals in the psychological research community are having trouble proving that you could repress / suppress memories and remember them.

If you can't scientifically prove that repressed memories exist, then god damn are you not going to able to conclusively prove that subsystems exist on a grand scientific and large scale because as it is, with how young Psychological research and DID research is, its not going to happen. Claiming that subsystems are 100% real or 100% fake is just something that is going to make you look a bit like a silly fool because there is no strong scientific basis / data currently or firm method to prove it in the first place.

Anyone talking about DID with 100% certainty about anything is talking like an absolute fool. Please put in your qualifiers. We can say what current information is assuming / suggesting, but if you don't want people in the more neurologically based / closer to harder science research fields laughing at you - put in your qualifiers.

2) Bouncing off of that, what *is* a lot more of the actual question is are subsystems a genuine thing that exists and is experienced in people who have DID and trauma and in regards to that, my answer is almost always "Probably as long as it doesn't entirely go against the concept of what DID is meant to be, especially if someone who has it reports it"

If we remove ourselves from trying to talk about this as a 100% scientifically true or not true thing because that conversation is so far ahead of where we are in psych research that its kind of laughable, we can focus instead on the practical, subjective, and more categorical self reported *experiences* which is a lot more applicable to people who are actually dealing with it.

With that being said, that means we are working off of models and ideas that are a lot more of "concepts and analogies" than hard facts and cements and so there are actually very little "known rules" on what can and can not occur because the base line definition of what DID is, what alters are, what repressed memories and dissociative barriers are, etc etc is not rooted in a firmly defined hard science.

So generally whenever I approach the question of "should I be skeptical on if this is real or not for people with DID", I just look at what the general concept / framework of what people think DID is currently and compare the function of what is being suggested to what is currently assumed. DID is assumed to be a survival mechanism based in childhood to survive chronic / complex trauma at a young age by compartmentalizing needs in a way that makes survival on a mental, emotional, and physical way easier.

So lets say subsystems.

First disclaimer I am pointing out for educational purposes - the term "subsystem" is hardly defined firmly so you can't even say if they are scientifically / factually real or not immediately because some say subsystems are "parts that are on a different layer / grouping of dissociation and work within their circles" and others say subsystems are "a part with parts" much like DID within DID.

For the former, the idea of subsystems is proposing that someone with trauma may compartmentalize their parts into groups that have limited communication with other groups of parts and that these parts. Does that fit in as something that could plausibly make sense in a survival mechanism to cope / survive complex / chronic trauma through compartmentalization? Yeah. Sure, so I would say probably.

For the latter, the idea that a part would possibly either perceive themselves as being multiple parts or go through something traumatic that they (the part in question) may split into multiple parts that are either A) identical to them but dissociated B) share "an inner world" or concept of identity with a dissociated part or C) whatever it is that this is explained as for one reason or the next. Does that fit in as something that could plausibly make sense in a survival mechanism to cope / survive complex / chronic trauma through compartmentalization? Yeah. Sure, so I would say probably.

On the CONTRAST, an example of something that I don't care how many people with "diagnosed DID" report it that I will NOT believe is system hopping. The idea of being able to shoot off a part of your consciousness from your brain, into another brain not only serves no aligned purpose to the concept of survival mechanism to survive trauma through compartmentalization, but it is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous in going against literally everything currently understood psychological about identity, personality, consciousness, and well THAT YOUR BRAIN CANT FUCKING GO INTO SOMEONE ELSES HEAD. MAYBE with surgery some how but, example of something that *literally makes no sense*

So, that is generally how I approach almost every topic of if something is real or not with people with DID.

Now in my less "research" brain order approach, I say they are real. I personally experience them, we have two parts (me being one) in our system who have subsystems / parts. From the looks of it, the other part that has one has a similar experience in the fact that there are multiple parts that identify as "Riku" and we all hold a cohesive core identification as "Riku" but we clearly are lacking the continuous stream of emotions, ideals, values, personality traits, and memory that is typically indicative of dissociated parts.

Could subsystems / the experience of subsystems be a human generalizing and grouping / finding trends that aren't there and instead not actually identifying the "true true thing going on"? Sure. Would that change the clinical and practical applications? Probably not too much.

But again, if you read this and got "this leaves more questions than it answers" thats just kinda where I am with everything so I don't know shit I just know how I go about thinking about these topics and hopefully that helped give some level of resolution to your debate.