Hello I'm new!

lifelongthing wrote:I believe Johnny-Jack have talked before about the creation of one of his alters where he thought he would make someone, if he really had DID - and then did. I don't know how that works, though.

DID is very personal and different for everyone. Best of luck figuring everything out and welcome here

we're basically saying the same thing, only using different words.

*trigger warning DID development*

the "sides"/"neuron blueprints" for that alters/part/fragment can be there, but not be developed or "created" as an alter/fragment/part yet, and so therefore yes, in that sense, an alter/part/fragment can be "created", but it's not true creation, it's development as an alter/part/fragment. The "blueprints" were always there, just not put into production. So the initial "split" was there, and the neurons were there, but an actual alter/fragment was not necessarily developed right away, and so the "creation"/further development of the alter/fragment can happen later. Before that, it's just "neurons"/"sides". (I feel like I'm just talking in circles and not making myself any clearer...)


it's kinda like... I'm saying that there's two points of "creation". the first is the initial "splitting"/disrupted structuring processes of the neurons- that creates the "sides" of the personality, but there's no alters/fragments/parts yet, just separated neurons. the second is the development of those neurons/sides as alters/fragments/parts. does that make sense? and that second points of "creation" is what people usually call "splitting" or "creating alters", when really, it's the separated neurons/sides being further developed into alters/fragments/parts. so i'm not saying anyone's wrong. i'm just trying to put it in perspective of the stages/processes of neurons and developmental stages and such is all.


i know people here have said before that they remember "splitting". and i believe you could remember "splitting", but i just don't believe it's as actual "splitting". I believe it can feel like and seem like "splitting" because it in a sense is, I mean you're "splitting" off, going off of your usual conscious-awareness and knowledge "track" and accessing a new "side"/"neuron blueprint" that hasn't has conscious activity before, and then "waking the neuron blueprint/side up" in a sense, and then starting to use it and have it be active, completely new to conscious usage and awareness. it's kinda like... driving in a car, and then jumping off your old, usual, worn-in road and onto a brand-new, never before driven on, never before a road before now because all it was before you said "build it" was blueprint plans, and so yes, you could remember an alter/fragment being "created"/further developed as an alter/fragment from "sides"/"neuron blueprints". and it could seem and feel like you're "splitting", much like it would feel to start building a new road as a "split-off" from an old road (i hope this is making more sense). but the blueprints for that new road were always there, it just wasn't a road yet until you decided to build it. does that make sense?


- cassie (age ?)

we're basically saying the same thing, only using different words.

Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development
of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate
identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic
memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their
effects on the child’s overall development. Secondary structuring of these
discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental
and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific
alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and
sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence,
and adulthood (R. P. Kluft, 1984; Putnam, 1997). DID develops during the
course of childhood, and clinicians have rarely encountered cases of DID
that derive from adult-onset trauma (unless it is superimposed on preexisting
childhood trauma and preexisting latent or dormant fragmentation).

Another etiological model posits that the development of DID requires
the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences
that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c)
secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics
such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and
restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and
needing to find his or her own ways of moderating distress (R. P. Kluft,
1984). The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely
from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly
elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators,
significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the
alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme
withdrawal into fantasy, among others. Accordingly, therapists who are
experienced in the treatment of DID typically pay relatively limited attention
to the overt style and presentation of the different alternate identities.
Instead, they focus on the cognitive, affective, and psychodynamic characteristics
embodied by each identity while simultaneously attending to
identities collectively as a system of representation, symbolization, and
meaning.

The theory of “structural dissociation of the personality,” another etiological
model, is based on the ideas of Janet and attempts to create a unified
theory of dissociation that includes DID (Van der Hart et al., 2006). This theory
suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems
of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially
traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided
into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning
and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense.
Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in
response to life threat, such as fight/flight, not to the psychodynamic notion
of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can
lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional
emotional parts of the personality.

In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise
from a previously mature, unified mind or “core personality” that becomes
shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental
integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed
caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond)
during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized
children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states
that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities.

lifelongthing wrote:I choose to respectfully not discuss this any further but I will ask you to please use a trigger warning for defined roles and such considering you are making a relatively broad statement when you say you do not believe others split in the way they (or even us, we consider Aicha to have split when we believe her to be split for instance) believe themselves they have. How Johnny-Jack for instance feels about the way he has split I can't write about at all because I haven't seen him update on that in a very long time and his views may or may not have changed. We believe what we believe to be true for our system though and broad statements like that trigger us as they feel imposing on our system. I was and will continue to try to help the original poster. Thank you.