dumb questionz..!~

tribeofone wrote:So maybe we "should" have been "one whole personality" - but the fact of the matter is, we are not. So declaring that "actually, we are the same person" does nothing to help us understand our situation or deal with it. So scientists have found that we are many small, as opposed to one big neural centres - that does not mean we are not complete people. If you look at people with brain injuries, you will see that often parts of the brain that were not injured can take over the tasks of those that were. So who is saying that each of these separate neural centres does not have enough processing capacity to sustain a whole "personality"?

Or if you take a bucket of water and fill the water into ten separate glasses - is it only water when it is in the bucket and "parts of water" when it is in a glass?

ty so much tribe u just crystallized what I waz failing to find the wordz for. That'z my biggest hang-up with all of it. [rinZU]

*trigger*

I think part of it is just that these are theories. There theories we have are not set in stone, it is what we know now and how we best find we can makes sense of everything. I don't know of many experts in this field that don't also say this. It's called a theory because it cannot be tested, and as such we cannot claim it as fact. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean we can say it's the truth because no one else can counter it either. I'm not saying you are saying any of these things are being said by the way - I'm just explaining my own opinion here

That's okay Cassie. I respect that you don't want to further talk in this thread

Way to go TribeOfOne

If you look at people with brain injuries, you will see that often parts of the brain that were not injured can take over the tasks of those that were. So who is saying that each of these separate neural centres does not have enough processing capacity to sustain a whole "personality"?

Very very interesting

I am actually really enjoying this conversation I usually get scared and back out after the first post I make because I get scared but this time I'm actually enjoying it

'm not trying to argue anything here, or say that it's this only way to think, or anything like that. i'm saying that when you talk about the processes, this neuron-developing process specifically, with the scientific and technical terms, in the sense of DID/DDNOS-1, it is what it is, and the process is what it is, and i quote, from those technical terms and from research, that alters/fragments are developed from personality neurons that did not structure together, forming SIDES of ONE and the SAME personality, which then later develop into alters/fragments, so YES, alters/fragments are PARTS of one and the same person/personality.

Hi Cassie,

please don't take this personally, I'm not having a go at you, but: there is no such thing as "the scientific and technical terms" - there are scientific concepts and points of view that are constantly changing and far from disputed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I want to flag up that there is not "one scientific theory" of DID that is right because some expert says so. I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but I'm in the business of bandying about "scientific theory" as a job, and none of it is nearly as clear cut and sorted as "the experts" would like the world to believe because they have to justify the next funding cycle.

The only thing the research has shown is that people with DID have separated neural centres. That says absolutely nothing about the existence of one or more personalities. It says absolutely nothing about whether what happens there is one personality fragmenting or several personalities developing. To claim it does is scientifically unsound and dishonest (not of you, of the "experts" that say so).

That is not to say it cannot be good for a system to behave as if they were one personality - every football team has to have some sort of "swarm intelligence" to be a team rather than separate players. But none of this means that an alter is not a "person" in the moral sense and before we can prove that they are not we should not assume they are not.

*trigger*

The only thing the research has shown is that people with DID have separated neural centres. That says absolutely nothing about the existence of one or more personalities. It says absolutely nothing about whether what happens there is one personality fragmenting or several personalities developing. To claim it does is scientifically unsound and dishonest (not of you, of the "experts" that say so).

Thank you. This was partly my point

i'll say one last thing then stop posting here.

we're not the same person, no. we are PARTS of the same person. let's not use the word person, let's use the word brain. we are PARTS of the same brain, we share the same mind, the same body. so no matter how you define person, or personality, or anything else, you are still all PARTS of ONE and the SAME WHOLE, you are still parts of the same brain/mind, you are still parts of the same body.

this is important to not lose because accepting the fact that you are all parts of each other is huge for the process of healing and even fully accepting DID/everyone in your system. no matter how different you are, or feel, or seem to be, no matter how separate, you are still all parts that make up the same whole, you still all share the same brain, the same neurons, the same body, etc. you are all still a part of each other.


and those that say that it's not possible for people to have multiple personalities, and that separated neurons don't create separate personalities but rather separate SIDES/PARTS to that personality are the very people that would know about these things, study these things, study how the brain and personality and neurons develop, the scientists, the experts, etc. you can't compare separated parts like alters to parts that come with normal development such as ego states, because they're not the same thing. you can't say, 'well everyone's a little separated, we're just a bit more, so who's to say this?', because it's not the same thing.


again, with the scientific explanation and process, they're basically saying that we're all puzzle pieces that make up the same picture, one and the same person/personality. just because a puzzle piece isn't a part of the puzzle doesn't mean it suddenly has it's own picture, and with the scientific explanation and process i refer to, it does not happen. it still only has a PIECE, a PART of the picture, and when it's put together with the other puzzle pieces, they create the one and the same picture, one whole picture. (don't start saying stuff like, 'but we're all kinda puzzle pieces in our own way', because now you're bringing in different topics and such, and they don't fit together, and aren't the same, so they don't share the same explanation. i'm ONLY talking about the scientific explanation and process for DID/DDNOS-1, where it is stated that personality neurons stay separated, form separate SIDES/PARTS of one and the same personality, and then from those separated sides of that one and same personality, alters/fragments are developed).



with opinions, the answer to your original question can very, because it all depends on how you define what makes a person, or a personality, etc. so, you can see yourself as being your own person, or being your own personality.

with the scientific explanation and terms, IT/THE SCIENTISTS STATE that alters/fragments are PARTS of one and the same person/personality. this is what it is. this is based off of their studies, research, and knowledge. this is based off of credible findings. this is based off of their scientific and technical terms and definitions for words like "person" and "personality".





(just saw all the replies...)


I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS ONLY ONE THEORY! can my words please please be read carefully?? i'm saying, with this "theory" that i am referring to, with these terms as they are defined to explain this process and the definitions these words have as defined by scientific people and the dictionary and such, when you answer this question USING THIS PROCESS and using the words from this explanation/process, IT IS STATED BY THIS EXPLANATION/PROCESS that all alters/fragments are PARTS of ONE and the SAME PERSON/PERSONALITY. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.



i have stated it before, but i will state it once again. the answer to this question can vary WITH OPINIONS, and of course, with different theories. i am not arguing that.

but when you answer this question with the process, explanation, "theory", whatever (fact for us), THAT I AM AND HAVE BEEN USING, IT IS STATED and THIS EXPLANATION/PROCESS SAYS that all alters/fragments are PARTS of ONE and the SAME person/personality. THAT IS WHAT THIS PROCESS STATES. THIS CANNOT BE CHANGED. IT IS FACT THAT THIS PROCESS/EXPLANATION STATES THAT. opinions may differ, different theories may differ, but all alters/fragments being parts of the same person/personality IS WHAT THIS PROCESS/EXPLANATION STATES. that is ALL i was saying and have been saying!!





- cassie (age ?)

..also, I think I should explain why I feel rather passionately about this topic, apart from my rampant narcissism:

In our system we have discovered that the way for us to heal and work together is to acknowledge each other as human, first and foremost. It is one thing to say of someone, they are "a trauma part". It is another thing to say "they are a person who has taken a lot of pain so everyone else didn't have to". That way it is not up to one "real person" to "integrate their parts" (none of us is especially keen on that), but it is up to us as a collective to put ourselves into everyone else's shoes and honour what they have done for us.

My special friend Hegel thought that what every human wants is to be recognised as human, by somebody. People want that even more than survival itself. Most alters that we know of want that. So by excluding each other from humanity the same way most of us ended up in this situation in the first place actually brings us further apart rather than together.

G

-- Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:47 pm --

Cassie,

sorry, I did not mean to upset you. All I'm saying is that I think all of us deserve to be seen as human, multiple or not. I do get argumentative sometimes tho

For now, before trying to write more, I want to say I am reading all your replies thoroughly Cassie

-- Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:56 pm --

*trigger*

It's called a theory because it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, it cannot actually conclude anything with precise truth. We can claim it explains the phenomena that we experience paired with what we can see happen physically. If we can't see enough to be able to diagnose by looking at the brain, I personally have a problem saying we have the answers needed to know what is actually going on enough to be a fact. This is me personally though and I'm not saying anyone here is disputing this

I (personally) don't think you're being argumentative tribeofone. I quite enjoy seeing what you write

I (personally) don't think you're being argumentative tribeofone. I quite enjoy seeing what you write

thank you. sometimes my system has to kind of drag me off stage when I'm getting to preachy, so I'm watching it.

the thing is though, although theories cannot always be empirically tested, they can be more or less plausible. with some things the question is, what is the outcome if we assume this to be true vs if we assume this to be false.

*TW*

with the earlier example re abortion: we cannot "test" if an embryo is a human being or not, but we can discuss what the outcome would be if we assume that vs if we don't, or we can make arguments as to why it would be reasonable to think one or the other. I'm trying to do that from my admittedly biased perspective.

thank you..

i mean, based on what i think makes a person, i am my own person.

but when i go by that explanation, it states that we are parts of the same person/personality, and i accept that, despite my opinion differing. it's because i accept that what is usually scientifically defined, especially by that explanation/"theory", as a person and personality, is not the same as how i define a person.

and when i don't want to promote possible wrong ideas, and ideas that originally went along with the "MPD" name, i go by that explanation and what is usually scientifically defined as a person and personality.
i've noticed people can grasp having separate parts of a personality/yourself a lot more than they can grasp or believe having separate personalities (don't know why, maybe because they're thinking stuff like "no one can be multiple people", despite people and personalities being two different things). and that explanation/"theory" that i use, refer to, and believe, is highly supported by many experts, and is supported by what scientists (including those not studying DID or experts in DID) have learned about how the brain and personality and neurons develop in general. it can't be proved beyond a doubt, so it's still technically a "theory", but it is not an unsupported one by a long shot, and it is definitely one that makes sense, and it is definitely one that when explained to people, they can understand (especially when i use my puzzle piece analogy).

what i accept as fact and believe when i use science and "go by" science, it's usually different from what i believe for my own opinions, but then again, what words mean for me and what they (generally) mean scientifically are also different, so i accept that.


not only that, but sharing a mind and body, kinda hard to not recognize that you're a part of a whole. no matter if you're part of a person, part of a personality, part of the brain, part of the body, etc., you are definitely part of some sort of whole, otherwise you would have your own body and own brain and such.




(just saw the replies again..)


I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS NOT A THEORY!!! ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT IF YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION USING THIS "THEORY" THEN THE ANSWER IS THIS: ALL ALTERS/FRAGMENTS ARE INDEED PARTS OF THE SAME PERSON/PERSONALITY. THAT IS WHAT THE "THEORY"/EXPLANATION THAT I HAVE BEEN USING/REFERRING TO STATES!

ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ENTIRE TIME IS SIMPLY THIS: IF YOU ARE USING THIS EXPLANATION/"THEORY" AND ARE GOING BY IT, IT STATES THAT ALL ALTERS/FRAGMENTS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME PERSONALITY/PERSON, AND THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE SEPARATE PERSONALITIES, ONLY SEPARATE PARTS/SIDES, AKA ALTERS/FRAGMENTS, OF THAT PERSONALITY. THIS IS NOT CHANGE-ABLE. THIS IS WHAT THIS EXPLANATION/PROCESS STATES.


again, i have said and repeated that the answer to this question CAN VARY BASED ON OPINION.





- cassie (age ?)

cassie, I appreciate what u said. I read it and I understand what ur saying. It'z just, i'm too biased about this, it'z doubtful I would ever call myself a part without his own personality..hehe. I prefer to think it'z one explanation that we are partz but I don't think it'z conclusive enough for me to agree.

tribe, it'z not sounding preachy or argumentative. [rinZU]