Still doing it

Malasha wrote:Una+, tell me, please, what in your opinion personalities in DID differs from multiple personalities in schizophrenia?...
...DID, as I understand it, is a kind of delirium in schizophrenia. In delirium, a person is completely turned off from the external life, but at the same time he experiences many events, being, as if in a dream. I think that DID and schizophrenia are of the same nature.

Some basic reading on the subject would inform you that multiple personalities (or alternate identities, as they are now more accurately referred to) are a symptom of DID and are NOT a symptom of schizophrenia.

And your second statement is completely false. DID is a completely separate diagnosis from schizophrenia, and is NOT a psychotic illness nor a state of delirium. It is caused by early childhood trauma.

Can you please cite the sources that gave you this misinformation?

TheGangsAllHere wrote:And your second statement is completely false. DID is a completely separate diagnosis from schizophrenia, and is NOT a psychotic illness nor a state of delirium. It is caused by early childhood trauma.

Can you please cite the sources that gave you this misinformation?

I'm not a professional. I just asked. That's how I imagined it. I see I made a mistake. I'll read about this in Wikipedia. Sorry for the mistake!

Malasha, I understand you are confused. I am going to ask you to refrain from posting any more on Dnester's thread.

Dnester wrote:Thanks guys. I am going to go to my DID specialist May 1sr and try to have an open mind.

Happy to hear this. Hope you find some insight, whatever that might be.

Wikipedia article about DID is really bad one. Wikipedia is not reliable source of information about ANYTHING, because anyone can write in there. Go search some real research about it instead of Wikipedia. It's outdated and seems to concentrate to the reasons why some people don't believe it's a real condition, so it doesn't even try to explain what DID is, but why you can claim it doesn't exist. And that part is outdated, since there is tons of neurological proof about it. And while they concentrate on all outdated claims, they totally forget all neurological proof about it, like the fact it is proofed you can not get DID because of therapy, neurology is not the same if you have DID or if you believe you have DID.

They tell about things like Sybil, who faked DID and confessed later on.

We can all just imagine how many people there has been and still are in this world who have faked or fakes now they have cancer or some other possibly lethal decease, just to make some money out of fundraising. No one would claim cancer does not exist, because people can fake it. So I don't get why it seems to be some kind of proof in case of DID. It's just outrageous.

I stopped reading when I realized they talk about books like mr Jekyl and dr Hyde in the article. What the heck does that book has to do with DID? Nothing.

DID does not fit into all theories about human mind. For some reason people don't seem to get, that it does not proof DID doesn't exist, it proofs those theories are outdated. Theories are only theories, but symptoms can not be wrong kind just because they don't obey some theory. The problem is not in the patient then, but in the theory, if they don't match.

Floralie wrote:Wikipedia article about DID is really bad one. Wikipedia is not reliable source of information about ANYTHING, because anyone can write in there. Go search some real research about it instead of Wikipedia.

I think that's enough for me for now. Because I'm not going to diagnose anyone.

Malasha, your comments have been very inappropriate.
You write advice, even though you do not know enough about dissociative disorders. This is a forum for peer support. And if there are other curious people, the least they can do is refrain from giving advice!

If you really want to know about dissociative disorders, this is a good resource: http://did-research.org/

fireheart wrote:Malasha, your comments have been very inappropriate.
You write advice, even though you do not know enough about dissociative disorders. This is a forum for peer support. And if there are other curious people, the least they can do is refrain from giving advice!

If you really want to know about dissociative disorders, this is a good resource: http://did-research.org/

fireheart, I'm not going to diagnose anyone, but I'm pretty good at the subject.

Actually, you have already diagnosed in here, and given dangerous advice and made claims that aren't true at all but just bs that happens to come out of your own head all the time. So no, you are not good at anything else than making stuff up based on how you happen to feel.

Go back and read your messages in this thread. See how much of it is gone? Moderators had to take it all away, because you are not good at this, but dangerous and simply just wrong. Dnester also asked you to leave her alone with your self-made explanations no one believes in, because there is actual knowledge about these things too. Did you leave her be? No. You didn't. You chose her to be your victim this time.

I don't think it takes long for you to be stopped your behaviors by admins once for good. So keep on, and this place is gonna get rid of you.

Sami came to see if your posts are being reported, or does he need to do that, you know, you are in his territory so you won't be allowed to be abusive. But he doesn't have to, others have taken care of that. Thanks for that people.

No need to answer, we know we don't need to click your messages open in future either, mods are on your case anyway.

Malasha wrote:

Floralie wrote:Wikipedia article about DID is really bad one. Wikipedia is not reliable source of information about ANYTHING, because anyone can write in there. Go search some real research about it instead of Wikipedia.

I think that's enough for me for now. Because I'm not going to diagnose anyone.

Wikipedia IS a bad source for ANYTHING. If that "it's enough for me" is about knowing what it says is enough- then you're consigning yourself to know awful mistruths and inaccurate information.

EVERYTHING on that site NEEDS to be scrutinized with actual academic and scholarly research- it's a site ANYONE can edit... literally. It costs nothing, requires no expertise or training in the field you're writing info about, nothing. It's often no better than complete garbage.