Trauma – PTSD

Question:

Drat! This didn’t do what I wanted it to in the header *RC kicks her rather annoying computer* This is a tangent from the communications post (part II I think) in which there is talk of multiplicity being a disorder. The most recent bit I read had averti saying something like ‘the present day scientific opinion is that it is a disorder’ or whatever his exact words were. (don’t you just love quoting something and you aren’t sure of the words to use? FWIW, this isn’t technically true. The DSM IV label Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)(300.14) states that _this_ is a disorder. For a set of symptoms to be considered a disorder they have to ’cause a person discomfort and interfere in their ability to function to a significant degree’ There is even a scale where all of this ability to function is rated. It _is_ possible for a person to be multiple and _not_ have a disorder. This person would not have the label of DID, would not have the disorder DID and would not consider that their multiplicity (and probably their dissociation) caused them a problem. Kind of like a person who is left handed all their life doesn’t find it to be a disorder, but if a person who is right handed breaks their dominant hand, they are temporarily ‘disordered’ because they are left handed. Or, a better comparison, a person who is prone to anxiety attacks has managed to structure their life in such a way that they are able to function reasonably well on a daily basis, but then something happens that increases the severity or number of attacks so that they become unable to function as well in daily life. This person wouldn’t be considered to have an anxiety disorder until they felt that the anxiety was causing a significant amount of dysfunction or distress in their ability to function. My point is that many of us label ourselves as multiples (not multiple personality disorder or DID or any other use of the word disorder) because we don’t see the multiplicity aspect of our selves as a problem. We may have problems with anxiety, or abuse related issues, or other forms of dissociation, or PTSD or whatever would get us to relate to this group and participate here, but our multiplicity _by itself_ isn’t a disorder and this _is_ scientifically accepted. To use myself as an example, I’ve been multiple since I was at least four (or three?). My multiplicity wasn’t really a problem in my life from 1984 to 1992. I had some mild problems with PTSD things and I had some clear multiplicity type symptoms, but I was functional, happy, capable, and so on. Then somethings happened that caused my functionality to fall apart. My multiplicity _still_ wasn’t a problem at this point, my anxiety and PTSD stuff was. Until I started working to change the system inside (about 1994) my multiplicity really wasn’t my primary problem. There was no way to ‘fix’ the problems I had without messing with my dissociative way of life, but if I had been willing to put up with the dysfunctionality of the PTSD and anxiety attacks I was having I wouldn’t have ever thought to change my level of dissociation. Even now my multiplicity really isn’t my problem, my dissociation is. So I guess I’d use the label of dissociative disorder with multiplicity for myself. Rainbow Colors (Jill) —      I am in the process of becoming, so this space is blank.

Response:

i have to admit r.c. that alot of mp is good,helps deal with stuff but with stinky cooperation[like i have] things do not run as smooth as they should,like people who could handle something refuse to come out and help others but that  would be ok if that was all that was problematic but its not my perps are menacing,either with verbal threats,hallucinatory appearences,or s*lf h*rm also some of the crying children arent so easy to live with either,they can be just as destructive as the perps,with internal threats ,fears and external s*lf h*rm too my life would be much much easier without others,i would be willing to have to do more myself if need be [or would like just a choice few to come along with me] but for the most part i personally could do without most of them[and if you ask me almost everyone would agree thanks eloise – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Drat! This didn’t do what I wanted it to in the header *RC kicks her rather annoying computer* This is a tangent from the communications post (part II I think) in which there is talk of multiplicity being a disorder. The most recent bit I read had averti saying something like ‘the present day scientific opinion is that it is a disorder’ or whatever his exact words were. (don’t you just love quoting something and you aren’t sure of the words to use? FWIW, this isn’t technically true. The DSM IV label Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)(300.14) states that _this_ is a disorder. For a set of symptoms to be considered a disorder they have to ’cause a person discomfort and interfere in their ability to function to a significant degree’ There is even a scale where all of this ability to function is rated. It _is_ possible for a person to be multiple and _not_ have a disorder. This person would not have the label of DID, would not have the disorder DID and would not consider that their multiplicity (and probably their dissociation) caused them a problem. Kind of like a person who is left handed all their life doesn’t find it to be a disorder, but if a person who is right handed breaks their dominant hand, they are temporarily ‘disordered’ because they are left handed. Or, a better comparison, a person who is prone to anxiety attacks has managed to structure their life in such a way that they are able to function reasonably well on a daily basis, but then something happens that increases the severity or number of attacks so that they become unable to function as well in daily life. This person wouldn’t be considered to have an anxiety disorder until they felt that the anxiety was causing a significant amount of dysfunction or distress in their ability to function. My point is that many of us label ourselves as multiples (not multiple personality disorder or DID or any other use of the word disorder) because we don’t see the multiplicity aspect of our selves as a problem. We may have problems with anxiety, or abuse related issues, or other forms of dissociation, or PTSD or whatever would get us to relate to this group and participate here, but our multiplicity _by itself_ isn’t a disorder and this _is_ scientifically accepted. To use myself as an example, I’ve been multiple since I was at least four (or three?). My multiplicity wasn’t really a problem in my life from 1984 to 1992. I had some mild problems with PTSD things and I had some clear multiplicity type symptoms, but I was functional, happy, capable, and so on. Then somethings happened that caused my functionality to fall apart. My multiplicity _still_ wasn’t a problem at this point, my anxiety and PTSD stuff was. Until I started working to change the system inside (about 1994) my multiplicity really wasn’t my primary problem. There was no way to ‘fix’ the problems I had without messing with my dissociative way of life, but if I had been willing to put up with the dysfunctionality of the PTSD and anxiety attacks I was having I wouldn’t have ever thought to change my level of dissociation. Even now my multiplicity really isn’t my problem, my dissociation is. So I guess I’d use the label of dissociative disorder with multiplicity for myself. Rainbow Colors (Jill) —     I am in the process of becoming, so this space is blank.

Response:

Related Posts