dumb questionz..!~

it gets too confusing for us to have it defined differently, personally...


we like to help keep ourselves organized and on the "same page" as say, a therapist would be on, by going with person = own body. sharing a body = parts of a person, alters.


(that, and with the neuron stuff, again, if you're being scientific, they have done research and do know stuff about how the brain develops, how a personality develops, and how neurons structure and develop, and in that sense, we are all personality neurons that did not end up structuring together, so they formed separate "sides" of the personality, from which we developed, thus, we are indeed all parts of the same/one personality/person when you want to get technical about it. it's not about what words mean to you at this point because you're discussing scientific and technical terms, which have a set meaning, and the process is what is is, no matter what you say words mean to you or "should" mean).


i believe that consciousness and identity can be multiple within a person. i do not believe that one body can "hold"/have multiple people inside. but then again, person to me means that not only do you have your own identity, but you have your own body and own personality that has been formed by neurons. alters can seem to have their own personality, and be very complex, but they're still parts/alters that are developed from separate "sides" of the one/same personality, developed from separated neurons of the one/same personality of that one/same mind and body. that's just my opinion mixed with fact, though.


- cassie (age ?)

*trigger*
We know that for a cohesive personality to be formed, the structuring that does not happen in DID must happen. How then, do we define that the structuring that does not happen, causes there to be parts of the personality instead of several personalities? Because a personality to most mean "a fully formed, cohesive personality"? I think again, it comes down to the definition of words here. (this isn't really a rhetorical question but it isn't a theoretical one either, really -- just thoughts).

DID is a lack of cohesive personality. Whatever you view yourself as, as an alter, a part or what have you - is yours to decide I think. Whether this fits with the general view is another thing of course. But I think most people just prefer whichever word they're used to using themselves.

Very interesting

That'z what I waz thinking LLT..like if singletonz have a cohesive personality, but multiplez never formed that with those neuronz, who iz to say we are not separate personalitiez? I mean, if it'z not all together, izn't it fair to say we are separate? How can u be partz of one singular cohesive person if u never formed into a cohesive person in the first place, u were a kid with a messy neural soup and that soup solidified into a bunch of different flavorz? I dunno..

So my analogy wont be as fluid as yourz all were but bare with me here..hehe. So let'z say personality iz like a recipe. Cookiez if you like, something else if you do not (chose at your own leisure hehe). Now, we've got flour (that can be Linn), eggs (the twinz), sugar (Kitty), etc. They're all separate until you throw them in a bowl (the body) but even in the bowl where they're chilling together, it'z still not a cookie. it'z not until you mix it or w/e and bake it that it all getz put together (I don't cook, so thiz may have been a poor approach..hehe). Until then, it'z just a bunch of random separate thingz in a bowl. The eggz aren't the flour aren't the milk just becauz they share the same space. I don't know where I'm going with thiz anywayz..but I think singletonz are like the cookiez outta the oven, you know, blended together, one unified thing. But we're the thingz in the bowl. U could call us partz of a cookie becauz all together we could be a cookie and as ingredients would MAKE a cookie, a person, whatever..or you could look at thingz individually and then it'z just..not partz of what will be a cookie but rather lotz of veryvery different ingredientz that have different propertiez and flavorz and sh*t just in a bowl. it'z just how you chose to tilt your head, if you get me. I don't even get me, so you probably don't..hehe. where waz I even going with that......

Anywayz...really do think it's just perspective here.. [rinZU]

i'm not trying to argue here, but to answer what you're questioning, it's all because of the neurons.

think of it like a tree. people with DID still have one personality, one tree, but since their neurons didn't structure together, they developed "sides" of that personality, those neurons that are separated are all still neurons that would have made up ONE personality, so there's branches on that tree. the tree doesn't start sprouting different, separate trees, it sprouts branches, that are all a part of one and the same tree.

people without DID would have like a cactus, a tree with no branches, all the neurons became structured together, and this is what would've happened had DID not developed.

again, it's not what words mean to you in these senses, or what you think words "should" mean, and the process is what it is when you talk about it and talk about the development in the sense of these scientific and technical terms.


the neurons that make up the personality of a person, with DID development, ending up not structuring together, and so they stayed separate. this does not mean separate personalities. it means that the neurons that make up that one personality are separated instead of structured, that is all. it's not like they become separate personalities just because they're not structured. they're neurons that make up one whole personality together, and are supposed to structure together to do so. with DID development, this structuring does not happen, and so separate "sides" of the one and same personality form, and from those separate neurons/sides of that one and same personality, alters/fragments are developed. this is how the process goes. this is what the research has shown. this is what the scientists have learned through studies, just like they've learned how the brain develops and what parts of the brain do what and how neurons communicate and such.

puzzle pieces don't automatically change to have a whole picture on their piece just because they're not put together anymore. they're still pieces of one and the same picture, they still have parts of the picture on them, they still fit together to make up one whole and the same picture. alters/fragments with DID are no different.

what you're talking about would be like a puzzle piece becoming separate from the puzzle picture, and then changing to where the puzzle piece has a whole picture in and of itself on it, not just a part of a picture anymore. and that's not how this works. puzzle pieces, alters/fragments, are exactly that- they're PIECES to a puzzle, and that puzzle is one and the same for each piece, and they all "fit" together to make one and the same picture (person/personality).



words can have different meanings for you, and by your definitions, you can be a person, or have your own personality, or something, but in this sense, it's scientific and technical terms that are set in what they mean, and how they're explained, and the process that they explain is also set. things don't change and aren't different just because words have different meanings to you, at least not when you're discussing them with this process and with these scientific and technical terms.


- cassie (age ?)

*trigger*

really do think it's just perspective here

I agree

I think your analogy was good actually

people without DID would have like a cactus, a tree with no branches, all the neurons became structured together, and this is what would've happened had DID not developed.

This is not what we were taught at the hospital. The hospital was wrong in many many things though so this doesn't vouch for any truth.

We were taught that the neurons in our brains are plentiful (which is true). There's loads of them doing different things. When it comes to personality and dissociation though, there are lots of "trees" that in normal people, have "branches" that touch each other; e.g they can go from using one "tree" that we can here call "Mona at work", to another called "Mona who cleans her home". In DID these branches don't touch (or not as good as they are supposed to) and therefore you end up with amnesia and other such fun things. The isn't a straight line of neurons that make up a personality, but the different lines should be cohesive, which is what creates a cohesive personality.

This is what we were taught. This was by two women who are of the top researchers and workers on DID in this country, which is why I even mention it.

i understand and know that, but they're not the same as alters, and so saying that they're the same branches as alters can get confusing, which is why i didn't even mention it.

my main point, and actually the only point i was addressing, was that when you're explaining DID with neurons and using the scientific and technical terms, it doesn't matter what your opinion is, the process is what it is, and the words mean what they mean. you can have different opinions and different meanings for words outside of that, but when you're discussing it in the terms of then neurons structuring process and such, the process is what it is, and alters/fragments are parts of one and the same person/personality.


again, it's not like a piece of the puzzle suddenly changes and gets a whole picture on there just because it's not a part of the puzzle anymore. it's still a piece, it still has a piece of one and the same picture on it, and it's still a part of one and the same puzzle, and all the pieces put together still create/make up one and the same picture.


you can have different perspectives, you can have different opinions, you can have different meanings for words, but when you're discussing the scientific processes with scientific and technical terms, it is what it is, and it doesn't change based on what you think or want the words to mean. the separated personality neurons form separate "sides" of the one and same personality, which later develop into alters/fragments, that are parts of one and the same personality, despite alters/fragments having the ability to seem and feel like they have their own personality and/or be very complex.


(like i said, not trying to argue. i'm just trying to state clearly the point i was trying to make).


- cassie (age ?)

My purely not scientific thought iz that non multiplez are a tree, like LLT said, with branchez that are separate but tie into eachother..and I think multiplez are like a tree that had seedz that left it and became other treez, so we're forest people..i guess. haha. I don't understand how research, brain scanz, and all that, could prove we are only partz..unless someone did a longitudinal study on a child who became multiple and then grew past where the plasticity waz mostly sealed.. (these are some of my thoughts mixed with some psychobabble Leon iz saying).. it'z otherwise extrapolating factz based on imagez and child development research..but that seemz more hypothetical to me than a total truth.. It'z like going to an art show and seeing some red tape around a painting of some girl and then saying "that red tape symbolizez her small life" but that'z not necessarily what it meanz. Of course it'z true ive never cared to look any of the research up so of course none of thiz is probably correct of me..hehe. [rinZU]

*trigger*

I don't understand how research, brain scanz, and all that, could prove we are only partz..unless someone did a longitudinal study on a child who became multiple and then grew past where the plasticity waz sealed.. (these are some of my thoughts mixed with some psychobabble Leon iz saying).. it'z otherwise extrapolating factz based on imagez and child development research..but that seemz more hypothetical to me than a total truth..

Of course. We don't use brain scans to find if a person has DID and we don't know everything there is to know about the brain or neurons. We try to explain what we see with what we know. But this is all theoretical. No one knows exactly what happens or what does what - it's all theories The need for things to be black and white / this or that way is very natural in DID, but the facts are (and there are few actual facts in DID) that we do not know exactly what is going on. We're trying to make sense of everything and the closest we've come are the theories we have now. But that's about it

i understand and know that, but they're not the same as alters, and so saying that they're the same branches as alters can get confusing, which is why i didn't even mention it.

I find that when we talk about neurons, it's good to explain things as they are and work from that considering it's a complex topic. You talk about neurons and I just explained how the neurons are more realistically structured

Glad it made some sense to you rinZU

I think it is meant like, let the choice be up to the system. Many therapist prefer integration. I think it's meant like, don't force it, only if the patient wants it.

No, he means lie. immediately after that he says the patient must give up "naive and reified notions about the personalities as 'real people'". I am hereby giving up my naive and reified notion of Richard Kluft as a real person.

@tomboy24, I think your tree metaphor has a lot goign for it, but you could say the same for all of humanity - we all come from the same genetic roots, the same ancestors, and have developed evolutionally like a tree. We are all part of the same species. In so far as we live in societies that are more than just the sum of their parts, we are all puzzle pieces as well. That does not mean we don't exist as individuals.

So maybe we "should" have been "one whole personality" - but the fact of the matter is, we are not. So declaring that "actually, we are the same person" does nothing to help us understand our situation or deal with it. So scientists have found that we are many small, as opposed to one big neural centres - that does not mean we are not complete people. If you look at people with brain injuries, you will see that often parts of the brain that were not injured can take over the tasks of those that were. So who is saying that each of these separate neural centres does not have enough processing capacity to sustain a whole "personality"?

Or if you take a bucket of water and fill the water into ten separate glasses - is it only water when it is in the bucket and "parts of water" when it is in a glass?

A personality, singular or plural is nothing but a program, software on hardware. it is entirely possible to have more than one program running on a computer - so why not more than one personality on a brain?

To be fair, we don't know if that's true - but we dismiss the possibilty before we've investigated and patronize "patients" (like Kluft does) as if they were idiots who have to be deceived into sanity. THAT pisses me off.

@galaxies, liking your cookie theory.

G

i'm just going to stop posting, because i don't feel like i'm being heard or understood...

i'm not trying to argue anything here, or say that it's this only way to think, or anything like that. i'm saying that when you talk about the processes, this neuron-developing process specifically, with the scientific and technical terms, in the sense of DID/DDNOS-1, it is what it is, and the process is what it is, and i quote, from those technical terms and from research, that alters/fragments are developed from personality neurons that did not structure together, forming SIDES of ONE and the SAME personality, which then later develop into alters/fragments, so YES, alters/fragments are PARTS of one and the same person/personality. this does not change just because people have different meanings for what a person or a personality is or is defined as to them. this is what it is. as it is explained with this process, and these terms, yes, alters/fragments ARE PARTS of ONE and THE SAME person and personality. i have read in my research that it is not possible for people to have more than one personality in the sense of personality neurons, since those neurons are what make up ONE and the SAME personality, no matter how separated they get, they are still part of the same whole, the same personality, one personality. this is based on what is technically and scientifically defined as a person and a personality, NOT what what others think defines a person or a personality.


so to answer your original question based on that process, based on those terms and their scientific and technical definitions for this process/explanation, based on what research has shown and what scientists have learned (and yes, they can learn about how the brain develops with scans, and they can learn about neurology stuff with scans, just because they can't detect or show DID with scans doesn't mean they can't show other stuff, like how a brain or neurons develop, with scans and such), YES, alters/fragments are indeed PARTS of ONE and the SAME person/personality.


to answer your original question based on opinion, that all depends on your opinion, and how you define what makes a person or a personality, so that answer can vary.






- cassie (age ?)