dumb questionz..!~

This magnificent work will give you the basics so you can understand this process:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415957850/?tag=exampleid-20

Hi,

I hope it's okay for me to resurrect this thread. I have a question that seemed like it belonged here.

TRIGGER WARNINGS: integration, DID origin theories

Earlier, someone (sorry, forgot who) said that it has been proven that people with DID have multiple neural centers (I think that was the term). I don't know how the scientists involved determined that, so this may be an unanswerable question (and it's probably demonstrating my ignorance of neurons and the brain in general), but basically I was wondering:

Have the tests/studies that determined the multiple neural centers thing been done on the brains of people who feel they have completely integrated? Did they show any changes? Or for that matter, are there any demonstrated structural changes between pre-integrated and post-integrated brains?

Thanks.

There are measurable differences between dissociative and non-dissociative people:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233754/
Hippocampal and amygdalar volume is smaller in patients with DID and PTSD. This volume is increased with proper treatment, but I don't know whether it gets 'back to normal'.

As far as multiple neural centers goes - I don't know. I don't think there are truly different centers. I doubt there is a center at all. The brain is truly magnificent, if a part misses, other parts will take over that function (in case of brain injury). It has been found that certain functions can become dysfunctional after a brain injury, but there appears to be no such place that contains the 'self'. (Would actually be interesting if that part would be found...)

But what are alters then? It has been suggested they are very developed 'action systems'. Read more about it here:
http://www.enijenhuis.nl/articles/traum ... pdf#Page=3 (page with number 909 in the PDF)
I must say this text is quite difficult to read. I don't really get it while I've already read quite a bit on the subject...

Thank you oaktree for the links

Interesting topic. Agreeing very much with oaktree on this

Thank you, oaktree! I know I won't be able to understand it right now, but I'll try to read your pdf link tomorrow.

One more quick question. Is says in the study you link that they use MRI to assess the size of the hippocampus and amygdala. Do you happen to know (or anyone else), would an MRI (done with and without contrast) ordered by my neurologist to check on things because of nerve pain (so, standard screening type test) have showed the size of those areas? Would the report have mentioned it if the hippocampus/amygdala were smaller, or is would that not have been evaluated?

I know that's probably not anyone's area of expertise here. Sorry. My googling didn't turn up the answer, so I had to ask just in case.

Thanks.

I wouldn't think so considering that would probably not be the places they would be checking. I'm not sure at all though. You think interesting thoughts!

I have no idea. I don't know MRI. Never had one, the tiny bit of information I have about it is just how it works... I think. (Would have to hunt for the memories, but I'm pretty sure I've heard about it)

fascinating questionz.. if i had my goatee on the outside i would stroke it now.. haha.. ty for the answerz.. i have no insight to add.. anywayz.. ty so much for the smartz.. [r]

I tend to see this issue as semantic. Like any discipline, psychology has key concepts and borrows terminology from colloquial spoken English. Personality is word that exists in both. But even psychology texts contain variation on what does and doesn't constitute a personality. Colloquially, the meaning, as in any word, is roughly in how you use it. So a defense can be built that alters are and are not personalities based on whether you're speaking colloquially or using the word personality as psychological terminology which is defined in a specific way.

My usual day-to-day experience, and that of most of us in my system, is that all the alters are different people. At the very same time, most of us know for a fact that we are one and the same human being and virtually everyone seems to get that we are all in one body. In terms of personality, I tend to think of us as having one big complex personality, which isn't very contiguous but is cooperative (no doubt more cooperative than many singletons), and is composed of a bunch of separate parts or sub-personalities. Some of my alters have their own sub-personalities as well, ways they behave which form a consistent pattern under a similar set of circumstances. I also tend to think of each alter as having their own personality because each is remarkably consistent and there's little discernible overlap with the others, though the twins are pretty similar, not surprisingly.

I don't really see a problem with the ambiguity of the word personality, used colloquially or as a more precise term as part of a psychological text or theory. I think a problem can happen when one or more alters in a system believe they aren't part of the same physical person and/or believe it's their mission to hurt, torment, suppress, manipulate, lie to or destroy another part. I'm really not sure how someone could build a convincing argument for the not-one-person POV, even if it once felt or was necessary to hold on to that.

Amen, Johnny-Jack. Well said.