Novel system

me:

"Nope."

"Rats."

"Has that ever actually worked for you before?"

So according to the TOSD before the age of what, 8-9 or something you're made up of these ego states that then integrate if you're a singlet and if you experience extreme trauma don't.

What are the ego states? How many are they? What happens to them? Can you tell me who in your system developed from what ego state? Is the hungry ego state just always hungry? Do they become the sin of gluttony or something? I genuinely want to know because not only can I find nothing about these ego states other than specific references to the TOSD, I have never heard anyone mention how many ego states you have and what they are. The most popularized version of ego states I could find applied to everyone, and was about adult/child and I think a third, as well as Freud's ego states.

As much as this does genuinely baffle me I know it'll be more useful to have a respectful conversation about it so I will try not to be too sarcastic. This isn't the right place for sysmed shit or talking about why Onno van der Hart lost his license, trust me we are aware of all that but that isn't the purpose of this post so please save it for another place and another time.

I bring this up because I am consistently bothered by things which are medical in system spaces being called sysmedicalist or anti-endo concepts when they're just... concepts associated with disordered systems. Someone's opinions regarding disorder says nothing inherently about origin discourse or non-traumagenic systems.

I am pro-endo, and it is uncomfortable for my thoughts regarding disorder or what words I use for myself to be brushed off and labelled as some anti-endo concept when the discussion does not even involve endos.

Anyway, regarding the TOSD: I do not believe strongly one way or the other, it's a theory, it works for some systems and not others.

However, I believe you may be viewing ego states from a much different angle than people who support the TOSD or apply it to themselves do. Ego states are not people or personalities, they are essentially functions.

It's similar to how you may act differently at home than at work or school and "shift gears" depending on what is required of you or needed in the moment - There is not really disruption between these states, though they may feel and behave differently from each other and perform different functions.

One may be focused in order to get work done, one may be very bright and social to make connections with friends, one may be quiet and distant when among family, so on.

Most people have these and they all flow together to form small facets of one person's identity.

However, TOSD theorizes that these ego states in disordered traumagenic systems are disrupted in development by trauma and never end up flowing together and working together like this, and instead of becoming one fluid identity, they remain seperated and continue to develop seperately throughout life as isolated parts rather than integrating into one functional identity.

The explanation I'm most familiar with of the TOSD is this very vague simplification of these mysterious ego states you have as a child with no real clarification as to what they are or why they seem to be unique (using those terms, at the very least) to the TOSD itself. It always felt like this island that split off from other understandings of child development and didn't care much for other schools of thought– the griffin system helped clarify that a lot. I was never aware of anyone contributing to it or any related theories other than Onno Van Der Hart and his two coworkers I can't remember the names of, so his background didn't lend it much legitimacy (to someone thinking only those people were involved.) I think so far it's been bad explanations from nasty people making me very disinterested in the TOSD as a whole rather than remembering that any theory can be twisted to harm people if you try hard enough.

Again, I appreciate the people that decided to bear with me on this. Getting so many resources and information drops has been very overwhelming but I'll try to get into them when I have the mental capacity to do so.

As a side note, what is the right word to use in the first place? "Theorists" sounded redundant and "believers" felt like I was a flat earther or something talking about ~globe believers~ which is actually part of why I used the word fandom instead since like I mentioned somewhere else since the "Christ fandom" is a frequent substitute for Christianity in my vocabulary and I thought it would hold a similar energy, which it very clearly did not.

So according to the TOSD before the age of what, 8-9 or something you're made up of these ego states that then integrate if you're a singlet and if you experience extreme trauma don't.

What are the ego states? How many are they? What happens to them? Can you tell me who in your system developed from what ego state? Is the hungry ego state just always hungry? Do they become the sin of gluttony or something? I genuinely want to know because not only can I find nothing about these ego states other than specific references to the TOSD, I have never heard anyone mention how many ego states you have and what they are. The most popularized version of ego states I could find applied to everyone, and was about adult/child and I think a third, as well as Freud's ego states.

As much as this does genuinely baffle me I know it'll be more useful to have a respectful conversation about it so I will try not to be too sarcastic. This isn't the right place for sysmed shit or talking about why Onno van der Hart lost his license, trust me we are aware of all that but that isn't the purpose of this post so please save it for another place and another time.

It is critical to understand that DID/OSDD are not different to any other disorder. The literature and research into our disorders does not account for or consider experiences of those without these disorders. This is why we feel as though conflating DID/OSDD and plurality as inherent to each other makes having conversations like this very difficult. Not every single plural has DID/OSDD, and not everyone with DID/OSDD identifies as plural or relates to plural experiences. The following information is all about DID (and therefore OSDD) and therefore will not be applicable to anyone who does not have a parts-based CDD, whether they are plural or not.

I must stress that the medical understanding of our disability is not sysmed shit. I do apologise if that is harsh, but it is just very clear there is a major gap in understanding between us I am trying to bridge by this prefacing statement.

This webpage is an accessible explanation, and honestly the entire website is a very good way to become educated on DID.

As in its citation, a lot of it is based off of "The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization" by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. That book is regarded as sort of the book when it comes to the theory of structural dissociation. This is a less in depth but free version of it.

Ultimately, look, the TOSD is a theoretical framework that works in conjunction with the more tangible practical things we are able to prove about DID. We do in fact know DID is formed by trauma. Here is a big long post I made about it. I direct you to the bibliography I made, as that cites the sources. The post itself is one I want to redo. However, if you intend on discoursing with me over 'DID is not proven to be caused by trauma!!' and especially not 'DID is not an actual disorder bc plurality isnt a disorder' read that entire post in full please and thank you.

Note of consideration: I am taking this post in good faith and assuming that you actually want to listen to what others have said. I have done my best to make sure this post is educational and constructive. I am autistic and struggle with tone, especially when I am upset, so I sincerely apologise if anything I said sounds rude or convoluted. That was unintentional, and I request you give me the benefit of the doubt about anything I said that sounds iffy.

I'm in the middle of the paper cited in the first link you sent me atm, already pretty confused about the difference between child ego states and EPs and ANPs as well as which ones are what- not to mention getting into emotional systems, which I'm not really getting a clear picture of what they are. As of right now I'm at the first table used in it(Structural Dissociation of the Personality.)

I do get your point about me calling TOSD theorists(?? believers?) a fandom being offensive and I'm not going to say it's not since I see how it can be. I do also refer to Christianity as the "Christ fandom" so it's not specific to the TOSD– it was meant to be more lighthearted than anything. As for the "sysmed shit", I wasn't using that to reference the TOSD as a whole. I've just noticed that a lot of people that reference the TOSD are sysmeds/exclusionists and it's often used as a reason to fakeclaim non-traumagenic systems so I wanted to clarify that's not something I wanted to involve in the discussion. (If you don't know what sysmeds are, that's probably for the best. It's just a bunch of pointless infighting.)

I think one of our reservations regarding the TOSD overall is that it references ego states integrating as children, but they aren't really mentioned in anything I've seen about child development. Links/resources are definitely appreciated(though again, they'll take a while to get through) since keywords are hard and the algorithm can be a bitch when it comes to giving certain links priority.

Since I personally see getting to know systems individually as more valuable than understanding diagnoses themselves, that definitely does leave me undereducated when it comes to DID and OSDD versus systems without either diagnosis. We're diagnosed with plain OSDD(not 1a or 1b,) which is basically the equivalent of "well... you dissociate."

I apologize for coming across a bit rude/hostile, the TOSD comes with a lot of negative association for us since it often correlates with other.. unpleasant traits and conversations, which isn't exactly fair to project onto everyone involved. I kind of tacked onto the end of the post that I want a respectful/amicable discussion but never went back to remove any of the snark at the beginning.

As for your confusion, I would honestly suggest beginning with the DID-research.org webpage and then moving onto the book. It is specifically designed to be an accessible collection of information and will create a good foundation of understanding before you dive into the deep end with the book.

The page "ANP and EP" should clarify your confusion around those terms.

I also think you'd seriously benefitting from reading the "Problems with the Theory of Structural Dissociation". Because you are absolutely correct, the theory does not match up with out current understanding of childhood development. That is one of if not the biggest problem about the theory.

However, the problems with the theory do not make it entirely useless.

"Overall, though the theory of structural dissociation is an important step in progressing towards an understanding of dissociative symptoms and disorders, it is not yet entirely applicable outside of a theoretical setting. It may at current be prudent to view it more as an origin theory than as an explanation for how dissociative disorders function."

(The ending paragraph of the "Problems with the Theory of Structural Dissociation" page.)

The TOSD is important because even though it is not entirely applicable outside of theoretical settings, it is an important step in progressing our understanding of dissociation, DID, and especially how trauma impacts its formation.

It is best used in conjunction with other research as a stepping stone that bridges our gaps in understanding. For example, things such as brain scans indicate a lot about DID. It affirms the documented symptoms and the trauma model, but provides no explanation as to how trauma could cause such alterations to the brain's structure. That is where TOSD is particularly useful.

Thanks for bearing with me. I've never seen anyone that sees value in the TOSD look at it with any form of criticism. I can't say if that's because of the spaces I've had the displeasure of being in or if it's how most people genuinely are. Either way, it's definitely refreshing to see a different perspective where I was expecting things to be a lot more polarized. I think I might have started with the same level of hostility that I expected rather than coming into the conversation with the level I wanted it to have.

So according to the TOSD before the age of what, 8-9 or something you're made up of these ego states that then integrate if you're a singlet and if you experience extreme trauma don't.

What are the ego states? How many are they? What happens to them? Can you tell me who in your system developed from what ego state? Is the hungry ego state just always hungry? Do they become the sin of gluttony or something? I genuinely want to know because not only can I find nothing about these ego states other than specific references to the TOSD, I have never heard anyone mention how many ego states you have and what they are. The most popularized version of ego states I could find applied to everyone, and was about adult/child and I think a third, as well as Freud's ego states.

As much as this does genuinely baffle me I know it'll be more useful to have a respectful conversation about it so I will try not to be too sarcastic. This isn't the right place for sysmed shit or talking about why Onno van der Hart lost his license, trust me we are aware of all that but that isn't the purpose of this post so please save it for another place and another time.

It is critical to understand that DID/OSDD are not different to any other disorder. The literature and research into our disorders does not account for or consider experiences of those without these disorders. This is why we feel as though conflating DID/OSDD and plurality as inherent to each other makes having conversations like this very difficult. Not every single plural has DID/OSDD, and not everyone with DID/OSDD identifies as plural or relates to plural experiences. The following information is all about DID (and therefore OSDD) and therefore will not be applicable to anyone who does not have a parts-based CDD, whether they are plural or not.

I must stress that the medical understanding of our disability is not sysmed shit. I do apologise if that is harsh, but it is just very clear there is a major gap in understanding between us I am trying to bridge by this prefacing statement.

This webpage is an accessible explanation, and honestly the entire website is a very good way to become educated on DID.

As in its citation, a lot of it is based off of "The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization" by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. That book is regarded as sort of the book when it comes to the theory of structural dissociation. This is a less in depth but free version of it.

Ultimately, look, the TOSD is a theoretical framework that works in conjunction with the more tangible practical things we are able to prove about DID. We do in fact know DID is formed by trauma. Here is a big long post I made about it. I direct you to the bibliography I made, as that cites the sources. The post itself is one I want to redo. However, if you intend on discoursing with me over 'DID is not proven to be caused by trauma!!' and especially not 'DID is not an actual disorder bc plurality isnt a disorder' read that entire post in full please and thank you.

Note of consideration: I am taking this post in good faith and assuming that you actually want to listen to what others have said. I have done my best to make sure this post is educational and constructive. I am autistic and struggle with tone, especially when I am upset, so I sincerely apologise if anything I said sounds rude or convoluted. That was unintentional, and I request you give me the benefit of the doubt about anything I said that sounds iffy.

I'm in the middle of the paper cited in the first link you sent me atm, already pretty confused about the difference between child ego states and EPs and ANPs as well as which ones are what- not to mention getting into emotional systems, which I'm not really getting a clear picture of what they are. As of right now I'm at the first table used in it(Structural Dissociation of the Personality.)

I do get your point about me calling TOSD theorists(?? believers?) a fandom being offensive and I'm not going to say it's not since I see how it can be. I do also refer to Christianity as the "Christ fandom" so it's not specific to the TOSD– it was meant to be more lighthearted than anything. As for the "sysmed shit", I wasn't using that to reference the TOSD as a whole. I've just noticed that a lot of people that reference the TOSD are sysmeds/exclusionists and it's often used as a reason to fakeclaim non-traumagenic systems so I wanted to clarify that's not something I wanted to involve in the discussion. (If you don't know what sysmeds are, that's probably for the best. It's just a bunch of pointless infighting.)

I think one of our reservations regarding the TOSD overall is that it references ego states integrating as children, but they aren't really mentioned in anything I've seen about child development. Links/resources are definitely appreciated(though again, they'll take a while to get through) since keywords are hard and the algorithm can be a bitch when it comes to giving certain links priority.

Since I personally see getting to know systems individually as more valuable than understanding diagnoses themselves, that definitely does leave me undereducated when it comes to DID and OSDD versus systems without either diagnosis. We're diagnosed with plain OSDD(not 1a or 1b,) which is basically the equivalent of "well... you dissociate."

I apologize for coming across a bit rude/hostile, the TOSD comes with a lot of negative association for us since it often correlates with other.. unpleasant traits and conversations, which isn't exactly fair to project onto everyone involved. I kind of tacked onto the end of the post that I want a respectful/amicable discussion but never went back to remove any of the snark at the beginning.