Role in the system (Is there an easier way to find out?)

Ponyta wrote:

Sarandipity wrote:I'm a bit "annoying" - I can't think of another way to say it, "difficult" maybe.

I don't like the idea that alters/persona/modes of being/different personality states (I don't particularly like those terms either but that's a side issue.. I don't like the idea that "alters" have to have roles. Like the body is a factory and if you don't do your bit then you're chucked out, obviously you can't chuck yourself out. But the idea that there has to be roles offends me.

The idea of "host" is the most offensive of all. But any of the "roles" Why does there have to be roles and labels? So singular people trying to fix multiple people can understand them? - That's the only reason I see.

Also I think this idea of a "host" was put on us by singular people. That they can't comprehend so assume one "host" must be present - "there just must be a main personality" (because they can't understand that their isn't). I'm getting a bit angry talking about it lol so I'm gonna stop.

But imo there doesn't have to be roles.

As for getting to know yourself that's another thing and for every person singular or multiple or whatever its a great idea and takes time and effort, alone imo.

I'm sorry. We weren't trying to offend anyone. Our therapist specializes in DID, and she said something about Weirdo being a gatekeeper (not just a protector) so that got us wondering. Myself, I know that everyone one of us are important and that we all are equal. Therapist keeps saying that I'm the host (AKA original), but yet, I don't feel like the "original". Plus we take turns anyway.....so I don't think that is totally right. That would mean that there are a lot of co-hosts. I don't know. So confusing.

It's just that what we read and heard made us wonder. That's why we asked. It was really bothering us.

No, I'm sorry, don't be sorry because you didn't do anything wrong. Its my problem. I have a problem with the terms. I could of said it differently and my intention was not to make you feel you shouldn't label stuff etc.

I'll try to put it differently in a more neutral way:

I feel that all the terms come from someone or many with DID in therapy and the clinician trying to make sense of a multiple person aligning it with other disorders and singular people and making up terms. They use things like protector and gatekeeper - like a sci-fi novel. They try to push parts into roles, like that part just is one part of a singular persons psyche. Eg a singular person could have unhealthy defence mechanism - shouting, let's say - their go to defence mechanism. So a single minded clinician says to themselves "this part seems aggressive so let's pretend it just does the job of defence therefore it is the protective part of the psyche" "we'll make sense of something we don't understand by pretending each part just does one job and then when we force all these different people into one integrated person they'll feel whole because each part has been squashed down into one role of a whole psyche" which is what I think they do and if it is imo is nonsense.

Each part, for me anyway, is like a whole person. So for example Roses defence mechanism is to placate the person and get emotional. Karens is to either use sexuality or to psychobabble the person. Patricks is more direct and meets fire with fire. Peter will just withdraw, ignore the whole thing and think about flowers. They all have defence mechanisms. None of them are the "protector" Mandy will throw all her toys out of her pram, cut her nose of to spite her face, very childish defence obviously. The Twins is a whole other thing, they will use the whole system or do something completely nuts (mostly they do something completely nuts) - they'd get labeled a gatekeeper no doubt and they'd like it because they like sci-fi but it's nonsense. They are not in control to say who's out and in. They will suggest and everyone goes along because they're smart but not all the time or even most of the time because they're asleep mostly. They were awake today for a few hours and I felt high, they were high - I don't understand how but they were - I enjoyed that a bit while I could, and then when it wasn't appropriate they "peaced off" (they'd say) and the day carried on. They're no more in control of who's in or out than my cat is. No one is. No one is conveniently a gatekeeper or a simply there to protect. No one is host - the most offensive term ever imo.

If anything the only thing that actually made me angry reading your post is that a DID person is sitting there worried because a clinician said labels they learnt from another clinician who bases their knowledge on studies done by singular people. It's ok that your worried, it's ok if you're finding their therapy helpful, it's good if its helpful of course.

If I were to have DID therapy I'd want someone with DID giving the therapy. Because I'm not wholly convinced that it's a mental disorder all the time (for me I have blips) I think parts can have their own mental disorder like BPD or OCD or whatever but just the same as a singular person can and that part needs to be treated, treating the DID to integration will mean a singular person with BPD - which I see as worse off.

I take objection to pretty much all the terms and how clinicians like to understand this "disorder" and I don't trust it.... So probably just ignore me on everything I've said because if it helps you to label then label, if it helps you to do whatever then do it.

But i would hope for you that you can look a little and question is this person who is therapising me's observation correct - which to be fair is what you're doing anyway and maybe you being so shaken by it is infact because you know there's something wrong with what is being said to you.

Again I'm the one who is sorry. I would of been better to not reply or to wait and reply more neutral. I hope I'm not coming over too strong now, I apologise if I am.

Much luck, love and light.

Hi,

The way we see it roles are jobs not people. Colin does a Protector role. But that's not all he does. He also fixes things and gets stuff done. When we first went to therapy I did Protector stuff. Now I'm doing a lot of Inner Helper stuff. We DO the jobs we're good at but that's not who we ARE.

Hope this helps.

Iain

Great explanation, Iain.

When I first met several in Sunflower’s system, several went by names that defined their roles like Manager, Messenger, and The Angry One. Getting real names seemed to help them open up to be more than just a role.

I think the problem I keep having with this thread, and it's my problem, so please don't be offended or take it wrong because it's my problem, is:

No one in my system wants roles or jobs. We're not here to take on roles or jobs. We're just here to live our lives.

We used to live pretty much separately but decided living and working together we'd get more done and we have. We're more like a basket ball team or an army squad. We pass the ball and make the point. Or we take on the enemy and win the battle, with sacrifices if necessary.

I think I'm finding this thread very interesting though because it could be key to my romantic relationship problems. We work like a unit. So we go into a romantic relationship in the same way we'll take on tackling work for example. We win the points. We work to win the points. We aim at winning the war rather than the battle. That leaves little space for vulnerability or letting someone really get to know me (which we do allow family and friends) but we have been so focused on winning a healthy romantic relationship we didn't focus on the relationship at all. So far all we've done is take on people who are basically abusive and then beat them in some way - also being completely aware that no wins in these relationships really especially us but we still do it. We want to win, like a team wins but that completely isn't how relationships work.

We can't have separate relationships because that's alot of hard work. We tried it in a couple of different ways but outside people don't like it. So I need a regroup on this.


Relating back to this thread - that's why I don't find labels helpful, we don't want roles, we want to live. There's enough outside life roles that parts take on without inside role pressure. I think that's why it hit such a nerve with me.

But if it helps others with DID to have internal roles then it's all good. And I apologise for the interjection into something that doesn't relate to me, sorry.

No need to worry, Sarandipity. It's a good thread, and a lot of folks are probably feeling validated to learn that others have similarly complex views about the value of roles.

Thanks for all that you've added to the topic.

Mary and others

Thank you to everyone for your replies! We appreciate them!

Sarandipity wrote:
No, I'm sorry, don't be sorry because you didn't do anything wrong. Its my problem. I have a problem with the terms. I could of said it differently and my intention was not to make you feel you shouldn't label stuff etc.

I'll try to put it differently in a more neutral way:

I feel that all the terms come from someone or many with DID in therapy and the clinician trying to make sense of a multiple person aligning it with other disorders and singular people and making up terms. They use things like protector and gatekeeper - like a sci-fi novel. They try to push parts into roles, like that part just is one part of a singular persons psyche. Eg a singular person could have unhealthy defence mechanism - shouting, let's say - their go to defence mechanism. So a single minded clinician says to themselves "this part seems aggressive so let's pretend it just does the job of defence therefore it is the protective part of the psyche" "we'll make sense of something we don't understand by pretending each part just does one job and then when we force all these different people into one integrated person they'll feel whole because each part has been squashed down into one role of a whole psyche" which is what I think they do and if it is imo is nonsense.

Each part, for me anyway, is like a whole person. So for example Roses defence mechanism is to placate the person and get emotional. Karens is to either use sexuality or to psychobabble the person. Patricks is more direct and meets fire with fire. Peter will just withdraw, ignore the whole thing and think about flowers. They all have defence mechanisms. None of them are the "protector" Mandy will throw all her toys out of her pram, cut her nose of to spite her face, very childish defence obviously. The Twins is a whole other thing, they will use the whole system or do something completely nuts (mostly they do something completely nuts) - they'd get labeled a gatekeeper no doubt and they'd like it because they like sci-fi but it's nonsense. They are not in control to say who's out and in. They will suggest and everyone goes along because they're smart but not all the time or even most of the time because they're asleep mostly. They were awake today for a few hours and I felt high, they were high - I don't understand how but they were - I enjoyed that a bit while I could, and then when it wasn't appropriate they "peaced off" (they'd say) and the day carried on. They're no more in control of who's in or out than my cat is. No one is. No one is conveniently a gatekeeper or a simply there to protect. No one is host - the most offensive term ever imo.

If anything the only thing that actually made me angry reading your post is that a DID person is sitting there worried because a clinician said labels they learnt from another clinician who bases their knowledge on studies done by singular people. It's ok that your worried, it's ok if you're finding their therapy helpful, it's good if its helpful of course.

If I were to have DID therapy I'd want someone with DID giving the therapy. Because I'm not wholly convinced that it's a mental disorder all the time (for me I have blips) I think parts can have their own mental disorder like BPD or OCD or whatever but just the same as a singular person can and that part needs to be treated, treating the DID to integration will mean a singular person with BPD - which I see as worse off.

I take objection to pretty much all the terms and how clinicians like to understand this "disorder" and I don't trust it.... So probably just ignore me on everything I've said because if it helps you to label then label, if it helps you to do whatever then do it.

But i would hope for you that you can look a little and question is this person who is therapising me's observation correct - which to be fair is what you're doing anyway and maybe you being so shaken by it is infact because you know there's something wrong with what is being said to you.

Again I'm the one who is sorry. I would of been better to not reply or to wait and reply more neutral. I hope I'm not coming over too strong now, I apologise if I am.

Much luck, love and light.

That's okay, please don't worry about it. I believe part of my problem is that I have trouble reading at times (possibly dyslexic) so that's probably why I originally thought it was worded like that. We're glad to know that we didn't upset you.

Thank you so much for your input. We appreciate it!

I understand what you're saying about the labels. The whole thing got some of us upset trying to figure out where we each "fit in". That's one of the reasons why we asked for ideas on figuring it out in the first place. I agree with you and a bunch of the other responders about labels not always working, etc.

I guess it wouldn't bother us so much if the ones upset about it(in our system) weren't worrying so much regarding it. I try to tell all of them that they are all equally important, but they feel worthless to our system. Probably has to do with a worse underlying cause however. We all have our own issues.

-- Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:43 am --

IainEtc wrote:Hi,

The way we see it roles are jobs not people. Colin does a Protector role. But that's not all he does. He also fixes things and gets stuff done. When we first went to therapy I did Protector stuff. Now I'm doing a lot of Inner Helper stuff. We DO the jobs we're good at but that's not who we ARE.

Hope this helps.

Iain

That is a good way to put it. "We DO the jobs we're good at but that's not who we ARE." seems to apply to a lot of us in our system. Thank you!

I'm not even 100% sure why we are so worried about it. I guess because some of us got really upset about not being able to find an exact "label" that fits them. I think they just want to feel as if they belong and are helping the system in some way. So probably partly due to a bigger issue.

Everybody's on the team. Nobody gets left behind. Everybody helps the way they can.

Colin

Following on what Colin said, everyone contributes something.

We've made lists of what each of us brings to the overall life and personality, of what skills we have. What surprised us was how we found one or more things of value for every single one of us. For example, Adam is an infant. Yet he allowed us to sleep soundly by fronting at bedtime and as a person who had suffered from random, maddening insomnia that had high value.

Even traits that might seem negative at first may have real value. So an alter who can feel rage without guilt contributes to psychological health and stability at certain times, providing an outlet for emotions without squelching them.

These lists make our alters feel good about themselves and feel special. It helps us see their value. It lets everyone know they really do fit in.

Johnny-Jack wrote:Following on what Colin said, everyone contributes something.

We've made lists of what each of us brings to the overall life and personality, of what skills we have. What surprised us was how we found one or more things of value for every single one of us. For example, Adam is an infant. Yet he allowed us to sleep soundly by fronting at bedtime and as a person who had suffered from random, maddening insomnia that had high value.

Even traits that might seem negative at first may have real value. So an alter who can feel rage without guilt contributes to psychological health and stability at certain times, providing an outlet for emotions without squelching them.

These lists make our alters feel good about themselves and feel special. It helps us see their value. It lets everyone know they really do fit in.

Thank you for that idea. We'll have to try that. Hopefully it will help the ones who feel worthless, see that that are valuable. I have a feeling this might work. Thank you! I was really worried about them.

-- Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:13 am --

IainEtc wrote:Everybody's on the team. Nobody gets left behind. Everybody helps the way they can.

Colin

It is my hope that one day soon we all can work together as a team. (There are still a bunch of troublemakers) On the bright side: A lot of us have been combining our talents for some things. So that is a great start.