Book: Understanding and Treating DID- 2011 copyright

Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identify Disorder - Copyright 2011 !

pg 56 - One of the reasons there is such antagonism is that it was not possible early on for the horrible dissociated experiences to be welcomed into dialogue with an affectionate and accepting other person, and this could not be internalized. Thus the functional parts are the only ones accepted and recognized as people.

pg 57 - Corresponding to the trance logic, different dissociated parts often have different psycho-physiological organizations, such as different allergies, taste preferences, handedness, eyesight, glasses prescriptions and responses to medications. The organization of self-states is often imagined in three-dimensional space. The parts are often layered behind one another, with those repressing deeper trauma behind deeper layers of identity states. (Kluft 2009) Frequently they are grouped or clustered together (Fine 1993), for example, with child parts of approximately the same age together. Or, parts may be contained within another part. For instance, in drawing the parts of her system, one of my patients drew a picture of a very fat woman who was fat because she had within her 3 other identities.

pg 57 - The important thing to bear in mind is that the part out front most of the time is not the whole person - there are other identities dissociated from this one.

pg 59 - The host - This part of the person usually goes by the name that the patient goes by, the name used socially in the world. This part is the one out front and actually often functions as a kind of shell, a front. In accordance with gender, among other things, the presentation of the host may vary.

pg 59 - it is frequently noted that the usually presenting part is not the original personality, Actually, this part could not be the original personalty because no one has an original personality. A person's sense of self and identity is built up and synthesized over time (Putnum 1997). Furthermore, the usually presenting part is, by definition, a part in relation to and in a relationship with other parts in the total organization of the personality. People do not start out in life unified but developmentally accomplish the joining and harmonious functioning of different behavior and mental states. however, those people who develop DID are likely to have received much less help from their parents or caregivers in identifying, linking and accepting their emoticons and thoughts, such that the internal working models that they developed of relationships are more likely to be contradictory and segregated.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Tre ... 994969/ref

Wow, that was really interesting to read. Thank you for posting it. I'm definitely going to pick this book up now!

This book is very technical, but I am trying to read it but it is certainly more for the therapist than for the patient. There are some fascinating things in it though! I have wanted an answer to how some peoples can be blind, but not when they switch, etc...

I myself love theoretical and philosophical works, especially on DID before I confirmed it for myself. But it's tougher now. The others are annoyed by my "detachment" and resent my using free time for reading when they could be out living, learning, whatever. I'm placing an order for this and several other related books (already have 50+ on MPD/DID) and should be able to sneak in reading and comment here. It's to all our system's benefit after all.

pg 56 - One of the reasons there is such antagonism is that it was not possible early on for the horrible dissociated experiences to be welcomed into dialogue with an affectionate and accepting other person, and this could not be internalized. Thus the functional parts are the only ones accepted and recognized as people.

No opportunity to learn how to incorporate bad $h*T when primary caregivers are abusers or distant. Not sure what last sentence means, more like the ones with the bad memories need to remain separate, unrecognized for that reason alone.

1. My vision has always changed.

Mine now shifts back and forth during conversations, randomly improving if my 11-year-old is near or out. Further discovered miracles of the mind will owe some debt to the study of persons with DID.

pg 57 - Corresponding to the trance logic

I'm interested to read about that!

pg 57 - The important thing to bear in mind is that the part out front most of the time is not the whole person - there are other identities dissociated from this one.

DID 101.

pg 59 - The host - This part of the person usually goes by the name that the patient goes by, the name used socially in the world. This part is the one out front and actually often function as a kind of shell, a front.

I myself don't feel like a shell or a front but it seems a common experience.

pg 59 - ...However, those people who develop DID are likely to have received much less help from their parents or caregivers in identifying, linking and accepting their emotions and thoughts, such that the internal working models that they developed of relationships are more likely to be contradictory and segregated.

Yeah, very tough for a child to build a consistent, rational relationship to people and the world when his/her world's primary instructors are inconsistent and often irrational. That we and others made it this far sometimes amazes me.

Very interesting tylas, thank you for posting. What i found most interesting is the part that there is no such thing as an original personality, since our personality builds as we get older and gain more experiences of ourselves in relation to other people. This seems to make perfect sense. Those with DID didn't get the proper reflection and mirroring back to be able to regulate ones emotions properly and to develop a healthy sense of "self." (or this is at least how I interpret it- and I know to be the case with myself.)

Many people with DID have parts with names, but this is not always the case. For some, the parts do not have names but perform functions or hold emotions. And, some people may have different parts with names and other parts who do not have names.

In general, a given alter has its OWN ID, Ego, and Superego.

trigger..
*****I think that, in larger measure, DID has been considered rare because of severe, chronic, early child abuse, staying unaware of the former leads to the obfuscation of the latter. As Hegement, 2010 states, "Disbelief is the universal Western affective counter transference, both to abuse and shifts in identity. The idea that DID is rare serves not only the shield from public consciousness the ugly and painful realities of a high prevalence of child abuse but also to shield perpetrators themselves.

-- Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:20 pm --

tylas wrote:*****I think that, in larger measure, DID has been considered rare because of severe, chronic, early child abuse, staying unaware of the former leads to the obfuscation of the latter. As Hegement, 2010 states, "Disbelief is the universal Western affective counter transference, both to abuse and shifts in identity. The idea that DID is rare serves not only the shield from public consciousness the ugly and painful realities of a high prevalence of child abuse but also to shield perpetrators themselves. [/i]

Wow. This is so powerful. The belief that DID is rare shields the public from the ugly and painful realities of child abuse and it also shields the perpetrators themselves. Yet another reason to change peoples perceptions about it, huh?

chapter 4. Here are some cool statements for that

pg 73 -Trauma in childhood changes brain structure, increases stress hormones, affects the endocrine system, numbs the self, makes the world unsafe, interferes with attachments and causes the dissociation of certain area of experience from conscious - as well as other detrimental effects.

pg. 85 On to Chapter 5
DA is a better predictor of later dissociation than is discernible and known abuse or specific instances of childhood trauma.

DID stems not only from trauma but also from other factors such as severe neglect and attachment dilemmas in the context of early environments.

Triggers
For instance...If the child is told he or his loved ones will die if he reveals what happened, then the child ends up bearing the terror in isolation. The child's affective state may be so unbearable that it rises to the level of the traumatic and cannot be manged in awareness. A child may be sexually and physically abused by his or her father only to be disbelieved and rejected by his or her mother. In many cases, the latter may be more unbearable than the former. (I know it is for me!) Add to that the reality that the mother who permits abuse of a child my be the same mother who was highly mis-attuned, unresponsive, or neglectful when that child was a baby; these qualities contribute to DA.

DA is a better predictor of later dissociation than is discernible and known abuse or specific instances of childhood trauma.

DID stems not only from trauma but also from other factors such as severe neglect and attachment dilemmas in the context of early environments.

***Triggers***
I have also read that DA is pretty integral to DID. This makes me feel a lot better, because one of the reasons I always disbelieve my own potential DID diagnosis is because nothing I know of so far seems "bad enough" to warrant DID, especially because a lot of experts seem to say it must be the result of chronic abuse. I have inclinations that there may have been some isolated SA when I was young (I could be wrong and there might be more) and I know that I witnessed isolated physical abuse when very young, but the major factors in my DID seem to be chronic, extreme neglect by my mom and repeated early separations from my dad, ultimately resulting in near total abandonment. My main AF was a grandmother, who filled my head with all sorts of ideas I am just now realizing were pretty twisted and purposefully undermined the already severely damaged attachment with my mother. Later childhood had extreme emotional abuse, neglect and isolated physical stuff, but I'd say 90% of what I know I experienced was extremely unstable caregivers, exposure to inappropriate stuff and a chaotic environment (people coming and going constantly such that the same group of people (and especially adult/parental figures) were not living together two years in a row for pretty much my whole childhood, 0-18). I sometimes feel almost stupid if that's "all it took" for me to fragment like I have, but hearing that experts are really emphasizing DA, even when streaming from neglect and not outright abuse by a caregiver, makes me feel...I don't know, a little less lame and OK with believing my diagnosis.

So ridiculous that I have such a high need for "proof" and outside validation for what is, at its core, a subjective internal experience.

I think most of us here want to know what's going on in our minds. I would like to know for sure which I have, DID pr DD|-NOS. I feel like I switch all day and loose time, but I can't be positive! Did you notice that the DSM-V will allow patient reporting of time loss and switching.

Yeah, I noticed the changes. I think no matter my Dx, I will feel like it is unjustified based on what I experienced. I too don't have a lot of memories at all, but I do have older siblings and my oldest constantly tells me how "protected" I was in comparison, as if our trauma is some sort of f---ing competition. So, I am constantly minimizing whatever I did experience to try to fit it with what outside sources tell me my childhood was like, in the absence of knowing for certain myself. Constant self-invalidation, just like my T says.

***Triggers?***
I did read somewhere when I was devouring DID articles last month that DA in DID can often come from a parent having a traumatic loss during the child's first couple of years (or right before the child) or something like that. In my mom's case, she was serial cheated on (dozens of times) by my older sisters' father and had a devastating divorce into being a single mom with two kids about a year before she got pregnant with me. Then, she and my dad broke up and officially divorced when I was one (though they were off and on for years). So, I am pretty sure my attachment with her was pretty messed up (had family tell me some pretty bad stuff about neglect), as it was with my dad, who was a pretty good caregiver if/when he was around. I won't go into details here, but DA does seem key to me from my own experience.
***End Triggers***

Anyway, I think DID I and DID II would make more sense. I'm pretty sure my therapist has seen a couple of full switches from me, because I know in our last two sessions there are some parts where I only remember the topic we were talking about, but have no clue about the details of our conversation (only the feedback an alter gave me afterward). I don't know if he can tell when I'm switched or not, though. When I am "me," I have a very good auditory memory and can often repeat word-for-word or at least concept-for-concept exactly how a conversation went. My session last night, we had a whole conversation about how my teen "big brother" part regulates a self-destructive part in a not-nice way and all I remember is that T was telling him why that wasn't good and he was saying why it was necessary. I know that part told me he thinks T doesn't get his role, its importance and the fact that he really has no other choice (it's for our own good). But...I don't remember the conversation at all except the first 30 seconds and one snippet where T asked about the self-destructive part and she came out for a few seconds. I think we talked about it for several minutes though. Anyway, that stuff seems only to happen under a lot of stress (necessary for survival) or in therapy (safe), so I guess that would make me like DID-light.