Is there such a thing as splitting?

Some of the capacities are approach oriented and some are retreat oriented. If the first group are active, and then the second become powerfully activated by some awful event, we might get what might be called a split. BUT, this would require that part of what was originally one ego-state/alter [Note here: He is talking about formed ego states and alters rather than an infants behavorial states] either now goes with the split part, or remains accessible to the split part, in the same way that all alters which can talk (and I'm convinced that we cannot assume that all can, at least not initially) have access to the how-to-talk parts of the brain.

Certainly, some people will conceptualize this as splitting. But of what? I don't think we really know, but here are two ways I could see this happening:

1. Given that we enter the world with basic neurological responses which, at the most basic level, are about either approach, or retreat, as time passes these basic responses get connected to various memories, and groups of memories. Initially, these are just BEHAVIORAL STATES, for example: me-who-eats / me-who-sleeps / me-who-snuggles-with-Mommy / etc. They are turned on and off in response to cuing or triggering stimuli, external or internal.

Here I might say that it seems correct to think of the brain as a self-programming organic computer, whose task is to navigate the environment so as to sustain itself. It learns the structure of its environment (both physical and social), over time, and thus increasingly is able to respond to internally derived needs and impulses (desires, etc.) on its own, without external assistance.

These organic programs are initially just sets of environmental "maps" with associated responses. A simple example: I may learn that mommy is often in the kitchen, AND that she is a food source, so when I'm hungry, I'll crawl into the kitchen and get fed. Problem solved! But what if mommy is a drunk, and gets abusive at times, when I approach her? Or just passes out, so that she is only responsive to me some of the time? Problem NOT solved!

This complication may well be beyond my ability to resolve, and so I begin to get chronically anxious, in relation to my frequent surges of hunger. Hunger can lead to food, the experience of abandonment, or being slapped. I cannot predict. Add to this additional complications, all involving distressing levels of distressing feeling, and my little brain will become so overwhelmed it can barely function. THIS will seriously interfere with the natural process of integrating my hunger-response-program with my I-want-a-cuddle-response-program and my I-want-to-play-program. They may not integrate as all. As my sense of self grows over time, it will grow in these separate areas of my brain, as separate identities. [Note: This is not splitting. It is a lack of integration]

There can also come to be a me-who-got-attacked by that big dog. This might be developed from me-who-plays-outdoors (during which at one time I got attacked). The play-outdoors is basically an elaborated (programmed) approach system, but the attack stimulates a retreat response. The question is whether or not the two can be brought together. That there is an INITIAL "split" is true because consciousness is a small place. [Now it gets complicated!]

The emotions associated with the attack WILL utterly take it over, crowding out all else. THAT creates that mind-state, which then goes into memory. [So here we have a stuck trauma memory!]

What does the plays-outdoors part do with this? If it's strong enough, it can integrate with it. [So in that case, the memory is processed and all if fine.]
But that may not be the case. - [Then the memory is stuck and must be processed]

So - The creation of an EP could be called a split, but then that will be confused with how people often think of DID being created. Make sense. The term could and is used, but it really confuses everyone!

2. But maybe it was NOT a split. [again, this word can be confusing, but Tom uses it here to show how it could be and is used in some literature] Maybe plays-outdoors just got "turned off" by a more basic burst of energy - "I'm being attacked and I'm going to die!" Something new gets created at that point, and it may remain an entity to itself if it cannot integrate with some other part of the self. [This would be a created EP.]

So, which is it? I have no way of definitively answering that question. But, do we really need to?

Tom is creating those graphs he said he would make. This should clear things up.

So, which is it? I have no way of definitively answering that question. But, do we really need to?

I don't mean this to come out as provocation or anything, it's just a question: If we have no way of defining, why would it be wrong to use the word split? If we can't know, is it not good enough to use a word that most of us associate with "before this alter was not there, not it is" kinda? (though yes, I realize that it really means "this is yet another behavioral or personality state that I was unable to integrate into an already existing one). I figure if we have one word for it, and that might not be the perfect or best word, but we don't have a different word to use instead - it's kinda hard to not use the first word anymore. I prefer to use the word split because most of us know what it means, if not neurologically. Or am I just way off? I often am so feel free to tell me

Yeah, the point is that the word split is used in some literature, but it is confusing because then it gets used in places it should not be.

Examples of improper usage that lead to wives-tales and misinformation and thus disbelief about DID - I split or fractured from the Core - I split or fractured from the Original. Any "splits" in early childhood. You simply to NOT split here. You begin life UN-integrated and need to integrate.



The 2nd point is that there is no original or core Self, other than our innate nature (personal genetic heritage) that we are born with) and the words core and original confuse people.

We do start out with un-intigrated parts to the personality.
Anyone in life can create (or split) to make new EP.
Those with DID can create (or split) to make new EP and ANP, BUT these are not split from what people think of as the core or the original.

Make sense....? this is the Nature and Nurture idea. We are born with something that defines a bit of who we are (nature), but the our environment (Nurture) molds that into something far more.

I have one of the 2 graphs, but Tom wanted to proof them before I post them. They make clear all the innate issues, etc...

But what is needed to understand is the incorrect usage (really any usage) of the terms spit, original and core.

I didn't know all of this until just recently. Great thread!

For reference this is what I wrote in another thread:

There you reached another term that created a bit of a discussion.
That thread can be read here.
*trigger*
In the discussion in ends up coming down to is the lack of integrating existing or new behvioral states and whether it is right to call this splitting. The alters, according to this theory, was not "always there" or "split from a core", but rather that a lack of integration from the start coupled with new behavioral states one is not able to integrate creates DID parts (ANP or EP) and that this is not accurately described as splitting due to the failure not being splitting of an existing part but the inability to integrate another.

I think, again, it's a matter of what theory you subscribe to but also what you personally think the word means. In literature splitting is still used as far as I can tell and I have not seen any other words for it

I personally wrote:

If we have no way of defining, why would it be wrong to use the word split? If we can't know, is it not good enough to use a word that most of us associate with "before this alter was not there, not it is" kinda? (though yes, I realize that it really means "this is yet another behavioral or personality state that I was unable to integrate into an already existing one). I figure if we have one word for it, and that might not be the perfect or best word, but we don't have a different word to use instead - it's kinda hard to not use the first word anymore. I prefer to use the word split because most of us know what it means, if not neurologically.

*end*

ok, im a bit confused here.

so, 'splitting' in the sense of an alter being created later in life that did not exist as a full alter before, that may or may not share the memories/traits/behaviors of an already existing alter - that does exist, but isnt actually splitting, because it didnt actually break off of something else. yes?

and splitting in the sense that a piece of an existing alter broke off to form a new part - taking the traits of the already existing part and keeping those traits itself - that does not exist. yes?

but does this only apply to the 'creation of the first alter' concept (which since there was never an original integrated personality, this entire concept is faulty) - as in, since a child is not integrated to begin with, it cannot technically split? Or are you saying that a split cannot happen in this way at all - even later on in adulthood after one already has multiple parts?

Ok. I'm sure other people will come along and be able to do this better, but I'm going to take a stab at it.

Also, for clarification, I'm using personality as being the sum of all parts for each individual human being, DID or not (wow that description was clumsy, sorry. I hope it's still understandable), and "identity" to mean an individual part or alter.

Trigger warning: discussion of splitting and theories regarding the cause/progression of DID

There are two separate issues here. 1. how are alters formed and 2. what do we call that process. As it happens, the answer to #2 is the same regardless of the answer to #1, heh, but I'll get to that a little later.

My understanding is, the current thinking is that all small children have unintegrated personalities. If their brains don't experience trauma to the level that it needs to protect itself from it, though, their personalities come together in a way so that it's fully accessible and cohesive with open communication lines instead of separate and compartmentalized. (I'm having trouble describing that, sorry.)

So in the sense of a split being like breaking off a piece of an already formed whole personality or like an alter popping into existence when they hadn't existed at all before, the current thinking is that that does not happen.

My system has been able to understand things better by thinking of it as being more like crystallizing rather than splitting. From what we understand, crystals form under a wide variety of circumstances from different materials into a variety of shapes, even crystals within crystals. We think of the formation of an alter as their individual identity crystallizing at the particular point in time that they were "created". It's not that the ingredients that became them weren't there before, it just took a particular circumstance for them to, well, crystallize. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best we've been able to come up with.

It seems that the circumstances that cause crystallization (not just the external experience but also the brain's ability to create a whole other identity) almost always happen in childhood, but there are exceptions.

Regarding what to call it, it's still commonly called "splitting". Although I don't like using non-specific terminology, I've come to believe that in terms of being able to non-triggeringly support each other, maybe it's a good thing to all use the word "splitting". That way, even if we don't all agree on what exactly splitting is, we all understand that it means the formation of an alter.

I hope that helped a little and wasn't completely wrong, heh. Now that I've written it all out, I'm thinking it wasn't really that helpful, but it took a while, so I'll post it anyway.

This is from a conversation I had with another user (the message is anonymized and been okay'ed by the user I talked to) and of course, like I told the user, I am no expert, this is just how I make sense of it. It may or may not be right so feel free to comment :

*trigger warning for theories, mentions of abuse etc*

The question, really, isn't whether or not you split - it's about if this is then a part of the previous person. What I mean by this is [...] a trauma happens and cannot be integrated in the existing part's history and as such a new part gains a sense of self and that becomes part of their history instead (e.g a behavioral state that one is not able to integrate into the existing sense of self).

All parts are, in essence, an ego state/behavioral state with a unique sense of self. Non-dissociatives have lots of ego/behavioral states but they are without a unique sense of self and/or amnesia between them. E.g they have one for work, one for housekeeping, one for having fun with a loved one, one for arguing with a loved one, one for eating etc etc etc and the list goes on and on and on.

From the start (e.g age 0 though 5-6) these different ego/behavioral states are not integrated (but without amnesia) in non-dissociatives and with time, safety and support a child integrates these parts of themselves by around age 5-6. This is essentially neurons structuring so they all create a full, cohesive personality.

If you do not have the safety and support in place and trauma occurs (and probably lots of variables that we do not already know about) we cannot integrate all these parts of ourselves. If when a baby cries for food (and therefore is in the "hungry" behavioral/ego state) it always gets neglected by daddy that part will not necessarily be able to integrate with the "playing barbies" state (where the child is having a good time with daddy) and the "scared" state where daddy abuses the child. Here they end up with amnesia because they all don't.. well, easily put.. fit together. It is not sustainable to their well-being to remember all these conflicting things. So each of these behavioral states end up with their own unique history and a unique sense of self.

Later in life, when new behavioral states arise (like toddler in kindergarten, daddy does different abusive thing, teen getting a new boyfriend etc etc etc) either the integration goes well and what is needed in the situation is not too traumatic and what is needed is what you with your own history is able to provide. If not, a new EP or ANP (depending on the need) is made. What before were just a bunch of neurons are then given a sense of self (just like you [...] and this part of myself that is writing is just a bunch of neurons). It doesn't have to be traumatic either, there just needs to be a need that one cannot, for some reason, provide for or integrate into your current sense of self (or another sense of self within your system). If it's no one's job either someone else gets that job or someone new is made, to put it simply. It's not really something hocus pocus or that one part is a split off part of another - they are their own unique part: a behavioral state that was needed after the behavioral state that was needed before (read: you) could not integrate into their sense of self. The new is not a by-product of the first, it is simply a new ego state with a self awareness. Ego states are endless -- there are as many as you need -- the difference in dissociative is just that we are not always able to integrate these different ones into what we know as "ourself".

Seems right to me (though I'm by no means an expert either) and much better put/explained than mine was. Thank you for posting that.