Book Review: DID Source book by D Haddock

Our little Dissociative Disorder Book Club! (I have never really been in a book club, so I am clueless! Please join in and add to the discussion!)



Chapter One - Dissociation: An Overview

The only part of this book I did not like is on page 1.
"For the estimated one in a hundred people who are suffering from DID....."

This leads me to believe that the authors WAY overestimate DID. I think its somewhere in the middle of those who think like this author and don't believe in it. I do think that Complex PTSD and DID-like DDNOS are far more common, but still not that common.

Okay... the book gets way better after page 1!
The author goes on to explain Dissociation...

This is interesting tying it into the phobia idea
"Persons with PTSD tend to avoid things that remind them of the trauma they have experienced and they will use various responses including dissociation as a way of numbing themselves emotionally."

PTSD is often one component of DID.


This is excellent! Page 5! I have read this many times since reading it in this book.

"The most important thing to remember when thinking about DID is that no one has one totally integrated personality.

In DID however, distinct personality parts can be very compartmentalized and thus appear far more distinct than in the normal brain.

Questions or Input on the first few pages?

This takes us to page 7 - Diagnostic Criteria

I've had this book and read parts before so I picked it up again from your post. Unlike normal times, say six months ago, I find it very difficult to focus on and digest complex material. My memory's awry and the awakened littles get bored quickly with purely mind stuff and make me restless.

I hate, hate, hate the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for DID. It's horse dung. But the author advises that until they meet an alter, it's not DID. Very clinical. Very inline with what a committee decided was the definition of DID. Very justifiable. Very wrong. My T has only met Jack 2-3 times but he absolutely diagnosed me with DID before that.

If anyone claims I don't have DID, well, read a couple of my posts. Yet until April, I had a system where most alters were inside, many fast asleep. 99.9999% of the time -- literally -- I was the only one in control. Some may have retained passive influence, one definitely did, but I was always out. "At least two of these identities or personalty states recurrently take control of the person's behavior." Well, that didn't happen, so I don't have DID?!?! Because I "got it all under control"? That definition caused me to believe I couldn't have DID. It delayed my pursuit of a resolution to my depressions for about two decades, the underlying cause of which was DID and DID alone. I read that definition and the one from the DSM III many times. I pondered it many times. And I didn't take action, largely because of the wording.

Okay, rant over. Other than that, it's a good work. Never once did I consider PTSD as part of my problems, yet it's imbued in nearly all of my alters.

tylas wrote:Our little Dissociative Disorder Book Club! (I have never really been in a book club, so I am clueless! Please join in and add to the discussion!)



Chapter One - Dissociation: An Overview

The only part of this book I did not like is on page 1.
"For the estimated one in a hundred people who are suffering from DID....."

This leads me to believe that the authors WAY overestimate DID. I think its somewhere in the middle of those who think like this author and don't believe in it. I do think that Complex PTSD and DID-like DDNOS are far more common, but still not that common.

Okay... the book gets way better after page 1!
The author goes on to explain Dissociation...

This is interesting tying it into the phobia idea
"Persons with PTSD tend to avoid things that remind them of the trauma they have experienced and they will use various responses including dissociation as a way of numbing themselves emotionally."

PTSD is often one component of DID.


This is excellent! Page 5! I have read this many times since reading it in this book.

"The most important thing to remember when thinking about DID is that no one has one totally integrated personality.

In DID however, distinct personality parts can be very compartmentalized and thus appear far more distinct than in the normal brain.

Questions or Input on the first few pages?

This takes us to page 7 - Diagnostic Criteria

I love this book! Though I must agree with you, I don't agree with how common they propose DID is. To have one in one hundred people go through serious enough trauma to compartmentalize (might have spelled that wrong, I'm feeling pretty off today.) them seems a little steep.


I understand humans as a whole do not have a fully integrated personality. I'm having trouble explaining what I want to say today; it's been a stressful weekend and I'm not exactly 'here'. However, I will do my best! I see it mostly in those who play sports. One second, they are smiling and 'normal'....once game time starts, they become totally engrossed in what they are doing. To the point where nothing else exists. It's as if these kids/adults become completely different people. It might not be a severe compartmentalization, but it does seem like a seperate entity all together. Especially if those athletes can't 'get in the game' one day; it's as if they can't let that part of themselves out. They have an 'off' day.

I don't know if that makes sense, lol. I tried!

tylas wrote:The only part of this book I did not like is on page 1.

DID Sourcebook wrote:For the estimated one in a hundred people who are suffering from DID

This leads me to believe that the authors WAY overestimate DID.

Actually, 1% may be an underestimate. Because of how DID is defined in DSM-V, most people with DID meet the definition only temporarily.

On to page 7 ....

Diagnostic Criteria

The major indicators of DID are:inner voices, nightmares, panic attacks, depression, eating disorders, chemical dependency, loss of time, handwriting differences, body appearance differences, body memories and severe headaches.

This section talks a lot about DID in the media.

page 16

Understanding the part of the Self
"Internal parts can be thought to be a result of the dissociative process and containing specific memories, experiences, emotions and style of functioning."

At first - the parts are extremely compartmentalized. The host may not know they exist.

Even after awareness increases expect the parts to still appear compartmentalized with their own way of being.

Host - Has executive control most of the time
Child parts - They usually represent the age in which the trauma was significant. Some can talk, read and write. Sometimes they can age. They may not hold trauma, but instead be the "idealized" (in the mind of you when that age) child.

Introjects - Exhibit characteristics of the abuser and may harm the body. Functionally these parts may be trying to protect from what they see as a danger in the real world. They may be trying to protect us from toxic shame.

Protectors - All parts are protectors. Some are more reality based than others.

*All people can compartmentalize when stressed, but DID creates more extreme compartmentalization.

Una+ wrote:Actually, 1% may be an underestimate. Because of how DID is defined in DSM-V, most people with DID meet the definition only temporarily.

Hi Una,
Could you please explain the bit about meeting the definition only temporarily?

Thanks, Zel.

-- Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:17 pm --

I've just had another look at the DSM V criteria and I pretty much fit all of them.
Dissociative Identity Disorder

A. Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession, as evidenced by discontinuities in sense of self, cognition, behavior, affect, perceptions, and/or memories. This disruption may be observed by others or reported by the patient.

B. Inability to recall important personal information, for everyday events or traumatic events, that is inconsistent with ordinary forgetfulness.

C. Causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. *

D. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). NOTE: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.

The only thing is criterion B. My most significant trauma happened when I was very young so I don't have much by way of memories. Thing is, it's not unusual for people to have limited memories of early childhood.
So how does that work?

Thanks, zel.

ZeldaZonk wrote:

Una+ wrote:Actually, 1% may be an underestimate. Because of how DID is defined in DSM-V, most people with DID meet the definition only temporarily.

I can answer that one, but I have a question on this same for Una.

The temp is because for a while people will meet the criteria for DID, then as they get better it will only be the criteria for DDNOS. Make sense?


Una... I don't get what you were talking about on the numbers.

What the book says is that in every hundred people, ONE has DID. I hope I read that wrong. How do you take that quote from the book. Anyone else?



Zelda... look at the proposed criteria for the DSM-V. That IV version is whacked and confusing.

tylas wrote:The temp is because for a while people will meet the criteria for DID, then as they get better it will only be the criteria for DDNOS. Make sense?

Isn't it also, though, that as stress decreases, so can the appearance of alters, making it appear to be temporary/cured? I mean, since alters only come out at certain times, wouldn't it make sense that they wouldn't come out unless the situation called for it? I can see how an individual could establish a routine, though, and alters would become more comfortable with making their presence known, but, obviously the absence of such does not make the person "better" in my mind. If you ask me, it just means they are doing a great job at keeping their emotions and memories dissociated...

tylas wrote:Zelda... look at the proposed criteria for the DSM-V. That IV version is whacked and confusing.

The above is the proposed criteria for DSM V
So what do you think about my problem re criterion B?

Thanks, Zel.

-- Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:47 am --

dividedtruth89 wrote:Isn't it also, though, that as stress decreases, so can the appearance of alters, making it appear to be temporary/cured? I mean, since alters only come out at certain times, wouldn't it make sense that they wouldn't come out unless the situation called for it? I can see how an individual could establish a routine, though, and alters would become more comfortable with making their presence known, but, obviously the absence of such does not make the person "better" in my mind. If you ask me, it just means they are doing a great job at keeping their emotions and memories dissociated...

Yeah, so people could go in and out of "fitting the criteria" throughout their lives.?
That's interesting.

Zel.

That's what I don't like about the criteria. Also, what is "ordinary forgetfulness?" Does forgetting what age you are fall into normal forgetfulness? I mean, and I laugh about it, but I honestly don't know. Most of my childhood is...not with me. I can sometimes get bits and pieces by thinking about "ok in this grade I had this teacher with these friends" just because I've seen pictures/seen things written down, but...who knows? And actually now that I think about it, I can't really remember high school OR college... It seems really far away and fragmented and blurry. Huh.


Also, what if you're very clearly multiple, yet it doesn't really cause you distress? You just live as a 'we' and are ok with that? Does that mean you don't have DID anymore?