Is there a difference between alters, fragments, and parts?

I'm still learning but I just wanted to know the difference between alters, fragments, and parts. I've seen people use these terms interchangeably but are there any differences too them. Do they have different roles, and functions, or development? Or are they one in the same? Just curious.

My understanding is that everyone (with or without trauma) has parts. Parts that want different things, like staying home and eating icecream or going out to party with friends, for example. They can be the roles we play in social situations or how we go about organising and maintaining our lives.

Alters are when those parts haven’t integrated into one cohesive, singular self, and have different aspects of life experiences within them, either as memories or the way they respond to a situation or a sense of self.

Fragments are like alters, but not as complex or developed. They can be a part of the self/system that only exists to contain a traumatic memory, or to complete a single function like eating or going to the doctor.

I personally believe that things are not that clear-cut and dissociation exists on a spectrum, and what might constitute a fragment for one person could be an alter for another, depending on how they feel about their internal dynamics and what particular functions these parts embody.

(Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m new to this myself.)

"Parts" is usually (not always) used in the context of the theory of structural dissociation of the personality, and means any type of dissociative parts, from the less dissociated ones you can find in PTSD/C-PTSD to the highly dissociated ones in DID.

"Alters" are a type of dissociative parts you find only in DID, and OSDD (DSM) / partial DID (CIM). They are considered to be the most dissociated parts, they have their own memories and sens of self, and they can take partial to full control of the body.

"Fragments" are a type of dissociative parts in a DID/OSDD/pDID system that are less complex than the others in one or (usually) multiple aspects : they can hold a single memory, only be able to act a single behavior, have few to no conscious of the present time, etc.

An alter only able to run away and hide when they are triggered, without any conscious of the context or time, can be considered a fragment. An alter with very complex behaviors, but almost no memory can be considered a fragment. The precise definition really depends on people.

Just be aware that not everyone like to use those terms. Some people find "parts" or "fragment" to be offensive, and some think "alter" doesn't depict well how they feel as a system and prefer the word "part". Some people even reject all "medical" language and prefer to use "headmates", or other terms like this one.

I agree, there is a lot of debate and people come up with their own definitions and terms all the time.
people who treat DID usually recommend not getting caught up in terminology and instead stick very closely to personal experience. Terms are meant to help people talk about experiences because it needs words to make sentences, not because they hold some universal truth in them. When the focus is too much on making the experience fit the terms, it stops being useful.

I've gotten the impression that it can be difficult to differentiate the terminology. We've tended to use 'alter' where 'part' is the more accurate term; however, while writing, we tend to say 'the others' or 'our/my system' because it feels like 'my alters' is taking ownership of other individuals.

To a certain degree, part of the problem is the fact that we are dealing with three different sets of terminology that not everyone agrees on. We in our system don't even use the terms 'part', 'alter', and 'fragment' in anything other than academic discussions as we don't see the point. We'll talk about roles more than who is a 'part', who is an 'alter' and who is a 'fragment'.

One of our favorite authors wrote, basically, language was developed by apes to tell each other where to find the best food.

When you start adding in roles to the discussion, it can get complex too. You are, essentially, having to learn a sublanguage. As for writing, as I said, we don't tend to say 'my alters' because we have those with identities and it feels wrong to claim ownership over them.

I have to agree that getting too caught up in the terminology can be difficult and probably not something to worry about too much.

Ask if you don't know, and we the community will try to help.
May your day be bright,
Octavia

So if I summrize (correct me if I am wrong), everybody uses their own words according to their own experiences, and if you want to know exactly what a person means when they use this or that word, just ask.

Yeah, basically. I'll also be honest, I had forgotten just how verbose Octavia can be.

Do not take it personally, I was summarizing all of the previous answers together. Just to double check I got everything right.

No offense taken. I had just forgotten how verbose Octavia could be. A lot of us were kind of lost in the fog for a long time, and it's been years since Octavia was here.

But all of this brings me/us to an actual question. How does autism impact DID? We've wondered if some of our parts started out as masks who eventually got used so much they went on to be fragments and even alters. I mean, it makes sense that someone who has autism also has DID would use masks constantly, but that the more that mask is out the more it might pick up traits, personalities and memories that might get split off from the rest.

But I would like to hear other people's opinions on this.

You do not even need to ask people's opinion because, lo and behold, studies have been made on the subject!

Summaries and references found here: https://did-research.org/comorbid/devel ... -disorders