How should alters be explained to regular people?

I'm trying to understand what alters are, but it's always confusing. It's a concept that just doesn't belong to the normal human psychology. I cannot find words or terms to describe it without using the DID terminology. But I don't want to use that terminology since it sounds "insane", "not normal" and "incomprehensible" for other people.

I cannot find any other ways to describe it than using their names. The problem is that I have understood that for regular people it is "insane" to use different names for denoting certain parts of your personality (or identity). However, without using their names you need to use long and confusing descriptions. It becomes something like "when I'm in that state where I feel like that and experience myself as this with these memories with barriers to these memories and with this behavior while lacking that behavior etc". That is not a fair description of a certain character, identity or alter. Any emotions may change within a specific alter, so using terms like "Angry Part" is not working. And to simply feel an emotion is not the same as having a certain identity. Besides, how do you describe an 'identity'? Identity consists of a collection of various aspects of a person. Just as a personality consists of more components than a simple emotion or trait.

Also, it is not possible to use simple terms to describe an identity. Is college student an identity? Is sociopath an identity? Is child an identity? Is artist an identity?...Well, in a way they are, but they are very unspecific. A whole identity requires more components than that. Is a "depressed artist" a more accurate description? "Depressed teenage artist?" "Depressed teenage artist with BPD?" Etc...You would always need to build up the description more and more. But what if that specific alter is not depressed today and doesn't care about any artist stuff?...This kind of descriptions would probably sound "insane" too. Especially if I'm neither teenager, artist nor have BPD as a diagnosis.

So, in the end it will always be easier to describe an alter by using the name. But if that concept is abnormal, then maybe there isn't a way. The concept of alters should not be too abnormal. It is based on human psychology (and perhaps even neuroscience). I think there have to be terms and concepts for "regular" people that are using the same mechanisms. Ego states have been proposed to exist in all humans. But even ego states may be incomprehensible for other people, I suspect. Or is that the best way to describe an alter?

How would you think alters could be explained to "regular" people without dissociation? How could it be explained without giving an impression of insanity or evoking stigma?

I generally start by saying that I have a condition that causes amnesia. I wait to see if they want to know more. If they do I talk about the amnesia and how it causes problems for me. Then I add the identity alteration. Because the amnesia is chronic, and has a pattern, there are walled off parts of my conscious mind that have certain kinds of experiences I don't have, and I have other experiences the parts don't have. Then I say it is kind of like waking from a coma. One of my parts, last awake when I was a teenager, woke up after 30 years and was stunned, even horrified, to discover herself middle aged, married, with kids. How is that for losing time?

Explaining this sort of thing to people is a difficult task. Usually I say I have Multiple Personality Disorder or that I have more than one personality. I know it's not completely accurate, but I believe the general public is more or less familiar with the name of the disorder at least. Sometimes I say that I'm more than one person, which is slightly more accurate, but I think it tends to confuse a lot of people. Other than that I don't really describe it without using the official definition that can found online.

Hope I helped,
One

What if you use: "a side of you, each with its own values and ways of seeing life, that sometimes have amnesia barriers with each other".

That's what I've used when I've explained it to my family and some friends.

I know it's more complex than that, and this may not even be a simple way to explaining it. But defining that concept, as defining who a person is, it's very complicated.

ChristaAngel wrote:Is college student an identity? Is sociopath an identity? Is child an identity? Is artist an identity?...Well, in a way they are, but they are very unspecific. A whole identity requires more components than that. Is a "depressed artist" a more accurate description? "Depressed teenage artist?" "Depressed teenage artist with BPD?" Etc...You would always need to build up the description more and more. But what if that specific alter is not depressed today and doesn't care about any artist stuff?...This kind of descriptions would probably sound "insane" too. Especially if I'm neither teenager, artist nor have BPD as a diagnosis.

I totally agree with you. Those are all adjectives that may define a person at some moments in their lives, but don't fully describe who they are. Plus sometimes the label becomes a straitjacket from which a person can't scape. The angry one, the handicap person, the poor person, the unthoughtful person. It doesn't leave room for change or for surprises.

You mentioned you don't want to use "DID terminology since it sounds "insane", "not normal" and "incomprehensible" for other people."

What if insane or abnormal doesn't matter?

I've learnt names, and concepts, and I've been amazed by how wonderful each of us is.

I can see you've given it a great deal of thought trying to explain alters to "regular" people. So it must be important for you. I commend you to for doing it. I would encourage you to let "regular" people be surprised, and amazed by how wonderful this mechanism is. Let them see that "normal" is actually rare, and let them discover and see how diverse and wonderful we as humans are.

Wish you all the best in your endeavor.

Sea

Thank you for your replies.

What I am looking for isn't really a way to describe DID or dissociation, but finding a way to talk about alters. Specific alters, not the the concept itself.

I think I realized after writing the post that maybe it doesn't need to be explained at all. Maybe it's more about always taking responsibility for each part no matter which part you consider yourself as at the moment or that you considered to be out during other moments.

I think I'm too afraid of emotions, feelings and thoughts, so I want to explain them by using alters. Instead of saying "I felt like this yesterday" I simply want to say "this alter was out yesterday". It will make me implicitly understand what I felt but I never need to put it into words. Not even to myself, and even less if talking to other people. On some level I will know what that specific alter was feeling, but I never need to feel it as "myself".

Una+ wrote:I generally start by saying that I have a condition that causes amnesia. I wait to see if they want to know more. If they do I talk about the amnesia and how it causes problems for me. Then I add the identity alteration.

Identity alteration is probably the psychological term for this. I wonder how people interpret it. It sounds like "changing your perception of your identity and behavior", which seems pretty normal. People in general are probably doing that a lot, but without feeling the dissociation into alters. Although, I don't like when people trivialize it by saying "oh, everyone feels like being different in different situations". If that was true, then there would not be mental disorders with identity alteration.

One of my parts, last awake when I was a teenager, woke up after 30 years and was stunned, even horrified, to discover herself middle aged, married, with kids. How is that for losing time?

Hmm, it is...not particularly common experience in the normal population.

pepsinotes wrote:Sometimes I say that I'm more than one person, which is slightly more accurate, but I think it tends to confuse a lot of people.

How do they perceive that, you telling them that you are "more than one person"? They cannot see more than one person, so it is difficult to understand what it would mean. As you say, it's confusing. I would not be able to fully consider other people as "more than one". Even if their behavior would change, they would still be "one", although with chaotic behavior.

Seangel wrote:What if you use: "a side of you, each with its own values and ways of seeing life, that sometimes have amnesia barriers with each other".

That's what I've used when I've explained it to my family and some friends.

How would you then address each specific side in normal conversation? Yes, your explanation for the concept is a simplification that's likely understandable for people...but the main problem I have is understanding how to address each specific alter. Defining and describing a person is complicated. I don't even know how to do that in general (without adding any dissociative traits). Even when I talk about other people I have a tendency to use their names as symbols. And only describe details if needed. Names are perfect (or at least good) symbols.

A difficult question to answer is "how am I different in this alter compared to some other alter". It is just as problematic as trying to explain why I am not the same person as my friend, neighbour or cousin. If the name, physical appearance, age, gender, occupation, genetics etc are excluded, then it's difficult to say what separates me from those other people. Is it just that we don't exist in the same space and time co-ordinates simultaneously?

Seangel wrote:What if insane or abnormal doesn't matter?

Hopefully it should not matter...but you often lose credibility if you are considered insane or abnormal.

I'm finding it hard and brave to say "I felt like this" these days, and accept its cause. Specially when those feelings aren't so good.

ChristaAngel wrote:How would you then address each specific side in normal conversation?

Names. I agree with you, names is a useful label.

ChristaAngel wrote:...the main problem I have is understanding how to address each specific alter.

I understand you. I would stick to names.

ChristaAngel wrote:A difficult question to answer is "how am I different in this alter compared to some other alter". It is just as problematic as trying to explain why I am not the same person as my friend, neighbour or cousin. If the name, physical appearance, age, gender, occupation, genetics etc are excluded, then it's difficult to say what separates me from those other people. Is it just that we don't exist in the same space and time co-ordinates simultaneously?

I think this is hard question, and maybe a more philosophical one.

Regarding:

"why I am not the same person as my friend, neighbour or cousin"

I would attempt to say because of the personalized way I feel and act about all of the topics in my life, and in regard of every person in my life.

Your paragraph makes me wonder, though, if that would be a way to explain that we are all one, we as human beings. Some people believe that "separateness" is just an illusion.

Regarding:

"how am I different in this alter compared to some other alter"

Oh my! That one is difficult. I guess... I have no idea. Couldn't it also be because of the "personalized way you feel and act about all of the topics in your life," when you are that alter compared to some other alter?

ChristaAngel wrote:Defining and describing a person is complicated. I don't even know how to do that in general (without adding any dissociative traits). Even when I talk about other people I have a tendency to use their names as symbols. And only describe details if needed. Names are perfect (or at least good) symbols.

As a non, I find it really helpful when different names are used by different alters. It's an established shorthand.

ChristaAngel wrote:I think I'm too afraid of emotions, feelings and thoughts, so I want to explain them by using alters. Instead of saying "I felt like this yesterday" I simply want to say "this alter was out yesterday". It will make me implicitly understand what I felt but I never need to put it into words. Not even to myself, and even less if talking to other people. On some level I will know what that specific alter was feeling, but I never need to feel it as "myself".

That's insightful. So is the question still around how to talk about specific alters? Maybe, without "selling them short" because as you wrote before. It's not fair to over simplify anyone to "Angry part" for example. [I'm sorry if I'm not putting this well. This is wholly outside my own singleton experience.] Or is it more a question of how to talk about emotions as well as alters? So that you're able to be both safe and honest in what you're talking about?

ChristaAngel wrote:A difficult question to answer is "how am I different in this alter compared to some other alter".

I might misunderstand this question. I know people with the same name as me. A few who look similar. And so on. So perhaps the difference between me and anyone else is our experiences. Having different memories and also the way that we see shared memories differently.

Ada wrote:As a non, I find it really helpful when different names are used by different alters. It's an established shorthand.

Yes, I like names too. They are safe and comfortable.

That's insightful. So is the question still around how to talk about specific alters? Maybe, without "selling them short" because as you wrote before. It's not fair to over simplify anyone to "Angry part" for example. [I'm sorry if I'm not putting this well. This is wholly outside my own singleton experience.] Or is it more a question of how to talk about emotions as well as alters? So that you're able to be both safe and honest in what you're talking about?

Hmm, in this particular discussion it wasn't really about how to talk about emotions. I just thought it may be the main reason why I don't like to talk about "other alters" as "myself". Although the socially proper behavior would require talking about "them" as "myself".

People (especially therapists) often want to reduce alters into emotions. Or specific functions. But many times alters are like characters in a story.They represent a specific aspect of life, not merely a specific function.

A difficult question to answer is "how am I different in this alter compared to some other alter".

I might misunderstand this question. I know people with the same name as me. A few who look similar. And so on. So perhaps the difference between me and anyone else is our experiences. Having different memories and also the way that we see shared memories differently.

It was perhaps a strange question. This problem arises from a situation where there are barely no noticeable differences between alters. It is common when I see them from a third-person view. It is often difficult to explain to someone else "who" a specific alter is because I barely know it myself. It's like observing other people in the real world. I may see them but I cannot know about their personality, memories, experiences.

I sometimes tell someone this:

if you give a party and your partner is there, your child and your parents, you will act different as a partner towards your partner, you ll change subjects and tone towards your child being a parent and you will act and talk in another way to your parents being a daughter. Even tho you change behaviour, manners and subjects, tone and such you re still one person, one personality.

if these ways of acting are that far apart and separated, they can act on their own without for instance sharing what htey do (amnesia), they can have their own names and own appearance, yet they still belong to one personality, one system -

Not sure that was helpful.