#TOSD | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sysmedsaresexist · 5 months

Text

⚡️News Flash⚡️

ToSD and the ICD - 2023

Autopilot functionality and self-destructive behavior in patients with complex dissociative disorders-A qualitative study

"One important theory of [DDs] is the [ToSD]. It distinguishes between [EPs] that are linked to traumatic memories and [ANPs] functioning in daily life. The 11th revision of the [ICD] newly introduced the diagnosis of [P-DID], acknowledging this theory by including components of it into a clinical diagnostic system."

It's a really interesting article that looks at those with OSDD/DDNOS/P-DID. It also has this amazing quote about functionality and distress, which everyone should read.

Please give it a go, despite the length.

---

In relating to themselves, most participants reported a functional, conformist behavior that we named “autopilot functionality,” one key feature being an explicit outward orientation of the patients, meaning that they tended to focus on other people’s needs rather than their own.

I did not exist. My environment existed. (P9)

From the participants’ point of view, parents played an essential role in the development of this outward-oriented behavior. The participants described that from an early age, they had the impression that their wishes and needs were unimportant. Rather, they felt that they had to conform to the wishes of their caregivers. This led to feelings of guilt and a constant suppression of their own needs and feelings.

The way I grew up… it was rather that I have to take care of my parents and what I want doesn’t actually matter… the main thing is that my parents are well and everyone else is well because otherwise… so I just always had feelings of guilt. […] So the relationship with myself, it was always rather oriented towards the others. (P3(2))

In this context, the participants also reported that they had learned to have little compassion for themselves, so that it felt normal for them to continue to function even though they were feeling bad.

There I am not very sympathetic with myself. That comes from the time when I was a child and for example, I can remember it well, my grandma had died and the teacher then said that I don’t have to do my homework and then I somehow didn’t understand what the one thing had to do with the other. And I think somehow that my mother is also a bit like that, that you still have to do everything somehow, even if it makes you feel bad. (P6)

The outward orientation learned from the caregivers later spread into various areas of life and affected relationships with children, friends, and colleagues. For many participants, work was a field in which they were very functional but often ignored physical needs like hunger, thirst, sleep, or pain in order to (over)fulfill the requirements of their workplace.

You start [work] at 12:30 p.m. and then you have to eat before or after, because there’s no break for six hours of work and then I just comply with the shift. […] And then I was with colleagues who said: “How that, you don’t take breaks, come take a break with us now.” And I said: “I’m not entitled to a break.” (P6(2))

The participants felt enormous pressure to maintain a façade to the outside. This could mean performing well in school or at work, or taking special care of their appearance so that nobody would realize something was not okay.

I always knew that I am not allowed to neglect my body, I have to take care, I need to wash myself, I need to brush my teeth because it’s really dangerous if someone sees that you are not feeling well. That has always been clear to me. (P4)

This mechanism of maintaining a façade had disadvantages for the participants. Because they looked so “normal” and continued to function, it was difficult for those around them to understand that they were not well, which made the participants feel isolated and not understood.

The worse I felt, the more I worked, and almost no one outside understands that. (P1)

The constant focus on functioning for others was exhausting for the participants and made it hard to develop a sense of self. For one participant, it even felt like she had to find a new identity after therapy, because she realized that she had only functioned for others.

Interesting actually that one doesn’t notice that at all. That one is actually only functioning and functioning, but functions really well, because one lives and works for other people. That was a very, very sad insight for me that I said, now I have half of my life behind me and had to realize that now I am born again, and I will look for my new identity with my new personality […]. Because before that, I didn’t feel any pain, I didn’t have any boundaries, I was perfect in everything I did, of course. And now? (P9)

Participants described that one factor that helped them to function was their lack in perceiving feelings and bodily signals. For example, they had difficulties adequately perceiving hunger, thirst, and pain. Consequently, participants compared themselves to robots or machines that worked well but were unable to be in connection with themselves.

In the end, I didn’t feel at all whether the life I’m leading right now is actually what I want or whether I’m just doing it, just to do it, let alone that I felt anything. It was really only getting up, going to work, doing therapy, going home again, working, and somehow it was just like that. I think a robot captures it quite well, well programmed, but that’s just it. (P8(2))

As already described above, these difficulties with the perception of stimuli from within the body also made it difficult for the participants not to overburden themselves. They often only noticed that they had overstepped their boundaries through extreme physical signals (e.g., migraine and sleep disturbances). They also described overburdening as a strategy to distract themselves from complicated feelings and to avoid conflicts.

I was just astonished. Shit why do I have such a migraine now? Or why am I so exhausted and empty…? So, I always had the feeling that I had to do something, maybe to distract myself and I didn’t want anyone to feel offended or somehow get into a fight with me, so I preferred to do it and think to myself, okay, I have a fever of 40 °C, but I’ll do it anyway. (P7)

#syscourse #pro syscourse conversation #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #did #osdd #actuallydissociative #actuallydid #actuallyosdd #actually traumagenic #debunk #research #weird that the icd would include it if it held no merit

46 notes · View notes

kipandkandicore · 1 year

Text

“but the theory of structural dissociation is just a theory!”

you know what else is a theory?

the theory of relativity

the theory of evolution

germ theory of disease

the theory of plate tectonics

the modern atomic theory

cell theory

just because something is a scientific theory does not mean it can be or has been easily disproven. in fact, in order for a concept to become a theory there must be ample evidence to back and support the claim!

so let’s please stop discrediting the tosd because it’s “only a theory.” theories help us explain and understand the world around us. and theories require tons of scientific evidence before they can even call themselves that.

there’s a reason why it’s not called “the concept of structural dissociation” or “the hypothesis of structural dissociation.” there is ample research to prove that structural dissociation can and does happen in those with complex dissociative disorders who experienced chronic traumatization.

if you don’t understand the tosd, that’s okay! it’s a complex and difficult topic that may take some research in order to learn more about. thankfully, we’ve done some research, and we’re more than happy to link some of the resources we’ve found in our studies.

ctad clinic’s video on structural dissociation

trauma-related structural dissociation of the personality

phase-oriented treatment of structural dissociation in complex traumatization

the haunted self: structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization

the treatment of structural dissociation in chronically traumatized patients

understanding treatments for structural dissociation

trauma informed stabilisation treatment for structural dissociation

(note about these sources: some of them may not be accessible if you’re not a part of an institution! we were able to access some using 12ft.io and others using our friend’s university login credentials… research should be open-access to the public and for-profit journals are a scourge upon the earth!)

“but the tosd is ableist!”

we personally, as a disabled system with dissociative identity disorder, don’t find the theory ableist, and in fact, find that it has immensely benefitted us in our healing path. we can’t find any evidence of the tosd being ableist, besides a single opinion-piece by the stronghold system, with claims which have since been debunked by multiple people, including system speak.

“but onno van der hart (a researcher who worked on the tosd) is an abuser who lost his license!”

this is true, and it is deplorable! however, van der hart is just one of many who have studied and written on structural dissociation, and the book the haunted self was written by him and two other authors! just because one researcher made bad choices, committed malpractice, or abused their patients does not mean that the theory as a whole should be discredited. another author of the book, kathy steele, has been a powerhouse in dissociation and trauma research for nearly 4 decades and is still going strong!

unfortunately, those with dissociative disorders are often vulnerable, traumatized, abuse survivors, and may seem like easy prey for abusers. this can lead bad actors to be drawn towards fields of trauma and dissociation. it’s important for those who harm patients and commit malpractice to be uprooted from the medical field and banned from treating or interacting with vulnerable patients in the future! but that doesn’t mean all research they were involved in should be cast aside and ignored. peer reviewed thoroughly and critically? yes. cross-examined and compared to case studies? absolutely. tossed out because the author was a bad person? definitely not!

“but dissociative disorders are still under researched!”

yes, this is true! but that’s no excuse to get rid of or dismiss the current research and widely accepted frameworks that do exist. it’s important to ask questions and be critical of widely accepted theories, instead of accepting them at face value. at the same time, it is counterproductive and and downright harmful to tear down research that has tangible benefits and has worked in the past to help traumatized systems recover!

it is normal to be afraid of things we don’t understand. but it is necessary to push past that fear, work through those knee-jerk reactions, and do our own research to come to a better understanding of the things that may confuse us!

if y’all have any questions or would like to further discuss the theory of structural dissociation, by all means feel welcome to! but please understand we are not a mental health professional or academic researcher - we’re just a system trying to learn more about our disorder and share the knowledge we’ve picked up along the way.

#syscourse #long post #theory of structural dissociation #tosd #structural dissociation #trauma mention #abuse mention #this had been sitting in our drafts for a while but we finally decided to finish and post it

89 notes · View notes

justanothersyscourse · 1 year

Text

My final comments on CDDs

Anything after this will be deleted or ignored for my own MH

People fully admit they're not taking anything anyone says in good faith and refusing to allow anyone the chance to elaborate, and I'm not down for that

Complex: I've stated repeatedly that calling one thing complex is not saying another thing isn't. This isn't a complexity competition. I'm not comparing the complexity of anything, but instead discussing what falls under the HEADER of CDD and why. Whether it's under the HEADER or not means nothing (see quote below).

Parts/alters: fully autonomous with their own continuous sense of self (ANP or ANP-like, based on Nijenhuis' updated ToSD definitions)

Distinction between OSDD 1a and b as CDDs: I said that OSDD 1 falls into secondary SD (it does, generally, see below), though 1a falls firmly in the middle and 1b falls closer, or into, tertiary. This isn't just my own words, but coming from the authors of the ToSD.

Neither is more complex than the other. In fact, it's suggested that the opposite is true.

-(there's another quote I want to include here, just need to find it)-

In principle, the number of parts of the personality in a given individual has little bearing on whether dissociation is at the secondary or tertiary level. A patient with secondary structural dissociation may have many EPs, while a patient with tertiary structural dissociation may only have two ANPs and two EPs.

The Haunted Self

The theory predicts that overcoming tertiary dissociation in DID is less demanding than overcoming secondary dissociation.

Trauma-Related Structural Dissociation of the Personality, van der Hart, Nijenhuis, Steele

CDD as a term simply encompasses multiple ANPs and multiple EPs. That's it.

In my initial post about OSDD 2, I specifically chose the word "parts" instead of alters because I didn't want to leave out OSDD 1a. I should have used a different word or elaborated more on what definition I was using, and how OSDD 2 did not share that feature.

OSDD 2: is about identity confusion, not alteration. That's coming from the DSM. I said, if you experienced those things and have "parts" or a system or alters, OSDD 1 or DID would override the OSDD 2 diagnosis.

I'm not sure why that's controversial. This doesn't say anything about the complexity of the disorder or the causes behind it. It just doesn't have alters or distinct parts. Why is everyone so angry?

OSDD 1a doesn't have alters: see this post with backup info. This does not mean that I believe OSDD 1a isn't systemhood or that they don't belong in this community. Again, just just a fact about the presentation of the disorder.

BPD and OSDD 1a: I provided sources where I was getting my comparison from. The difference here seems to be levels of amnesia and the... Strength? Of EPs. Does that make sense? In fact, I'd argue trauma-based, dissociative BPD belongs in our communities too for support.

According to the Haunted Self:

However, patients with BPD have lower scores for dissociative amnesia on the DIS-Q than patients with DID and lesser degrees of identity confusion and alteration. These differences distinguish BPD from DID... Some patients with BPD have severe dissociative symptoms, and may actually border on DDNOS or DID. Our clinical observations suggest that dissociative parts in BPD patients have less emancipation and elaboration, and a less distinct sense of self than in DDNOS or DID.

I think that's everything, but if you send an ask with a point you'd like further clarification on, I'll likely add it here, but I won't be directly engaging any further.

Additional edit:

I'm not sure if it's because I live in America's hat, or just my own education, but DDNOS was always described as "not yet" and "not quite". People were diagnosed with DDNOS when they either failed to switch during diagnostic interviewing, or they showed no signs of amnesia, and the vast majority would go on to eventually display both and later be diagnosed as DID.

For example, during initial interviews, we would go into "states" where we believed we were still in active danger. We would cry and panic and completely shut down. If this was an alter, it was little more than a fragment that would manage to completely overpower the rest of us with the sheer... Size of its fear. Recognizing where our life was currently was just... Beyond our grasp in this state, and even if it could be convinced we were safe and calmed to hold a conversation, any progress was undone by the next time it appeared.

I came out of these sessions with only minimal awareness/memory. I knew I'd made a fool of myself, but not much else, though the way I tried to play it off as nothing major implied I had more awareness than I did.

This was the EP, I was told.

Its function was extremely limited and it was driven by emotional distress. Talking to it in any coherent fashion wasn't possible. It couldn't recognize our life as it was currently and was terrified that our abuser was standing outside the office door, waiting for us to finish. All that could be done was to reassure it until the episode passed. It believed it was me, but thought that I was someone else. That sounds confusing, but it was very much a part of me/us, and related to this body, this life, and the trauma we experienced, but somehow thought that we were a little boy, at the same time.

I am not a little boy, and I was little girl at the time that abuse occurred.

Again, confusing, nothing ever makes sense, it's wonderful.

Amnesia wasn't clear enough at this point, not for switching and not for past abuse.

I have never managed to fully switch in therapy, though at home my system is extremely comfortable with my partner. Several years later, long after I had chickened out of further testing, I was in therapy again and my doctor was aware of my previous history with OSDD. I still couldn't let us switch in front of her, but my husband was brought in to talk about some of my other alters.

Some appeared, by description, to be fully fledged ANPs. Aware of our life as it was, vaguely aware of our history, but relatively unbothered and disconnected from the... Fallout of that history. They had likes and dislikes and could hold conversations about current, relative topics, and held their own opinions and ideas about those topics.

For example, all except for one of my ANPs thinks COVID was bad. One of us thinks the world needed a culling to bring to population down before we completely kill the planet. That's fucked up, but he's got opinions and he's damn well going to share them, whether any of us like it or not.

This alter was a mix of an ANP and EP. He was still largely driven by paranoia and anger, and he occasionally found himself confused about days and times or where he was (sometimes even what species he was). He was mostly capable of holding conversations about current topics, though very selfish in that it would always turn back to him and his problems.

The EPs have no idea what COVID is (though if I split one because of COVID, that would be a different story), and have no interest in hearing about it.

I have never once said that OSDD 1a are not systems. They very much are. They still switch and have just as many (if not more) problems as I do. They still have parts.

However, in the context of CDDs, they don't fall into tertiary SD. That all I said.

EPs are not "alters" as they're known in DID because they have little to no awareness of positive life changes and instead remain stuck in trauma. I've lost hope of my little EP ever taking on ANP traits, and instead now focus on internal care for him.

Because he fucking deserves it.

I needed to stop hoping and expecting, because it was putting more strain and stress on him, and I needed to accept the little emotional bundle that he was. He likes mug cakes and watching Marble Olympics after he's been calmed. It helps him relax so we can scoop him back up in a hug and put him to bed, because naps after crying are the best.

In my opinion, all this makes DDNOS/OSDD 1 a pretty useless diagnosis, and I think it should all be part of one single diagnosis. I think OSDD should be in tertiary, regardless of EP/ANP configuration because of the relative emancipation and awareness of EPs in 1a. They may not be as distinct and autonomous as ANPs or alters, but this is clearly part of the same disorder and it goes above and beyond that of the other disorders considered secondary SD.

There have been dozens of recommendations for how this should happen, all with their own problems and positives.

I don't really have any thoughts myself on how to do this.

But I never meant to downplay anyone's experiences. I only meant to discuss the literature on SDs.

#syscourse #actuallydid #actuallytraumagenic #actuallyosdd #did #osdd #ptsd #ToSD #structural dissociation #cdd

60 notes · View notes

the-malpractice · 1 year

Text

Okay TOSD(theory of structural dissociation) fandom, I have a question:

So according to the TOSD before the age of what, 8-9 or something you're made up of these ego states that then integrate if you're a singlet and if you experience extreme trauma don't.

What are the ego states? How many are they? What happens to them? Can you tell me who in your system developed from what ego state? Is the hungry ego state just always hungry? Do they become the sin of gluttony or something? I genuinely want to know because not only can I find nothing about these ego states other than specific references to the TOSD, I have never heard anyone mention how many ego states you have and what they are. The most popularized version of ego states I could find applied to everyone, and was about adult/child and I think a third, as well as Freud's ego states.

As much as this does genuinely baffle me I know it'll be more useful to have a respectful conversation about it so I will try not to be too sarcastic. This isn't the right place for sysmed shit or talking about why Onno van der Hart lost his license, trust me we are aware of all that but that isn't the purpose of this post so please save it for another place and another time.

-Rev

Edit: I apologize for coming across as rude/hostile, the TOSD comes with a lot of negative association for us since it often correlates with other.. unpleasant traits and conversations, which isn't exactly fair to project onto everyone involved. I kind of tacked onto the end of the post that I want a respectful/amicable discussion but never went back to remove any of the snark at the beginning. I'm leaving it as is just for transparency's sake so nobody is wondering what the hell the reblogs are talking about.

#did #dissociative identity disorder #osdd #osdd 1b #osdd 1a #traumagenic #traumagenic did #pluralgang #plurality #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #syscourse #sysmed mention #tw sysmed #putting those because from my experience mostly sysmeds care about/reference the tosd

66 notes · View notes

granulesofsand · 2 months

Text

Selves and Self-States

Please, have a rambling explanation of how we view and define dissociation within plurality, multiplicity, and CDDs. We’d love to hear from you, and we have links to free sources for any who ask (as we don’t want them taken down).

Structural Dissociation

Under the theory of structural dissociation (TOSD), the emotional parts (EPs) are initially unintegrated due to overwhelm, but remain separate as a result of the phobia of the apparently normal parts (ANPs) who live daily life. This phobia can manifest as denial of the EPs’ existence, refusal to communicate with EPs, and inability to accept the EPs’ experience as belonging to the ANP (the condition to integration).

Both in complex dissociative disorders (CDDs) and other traumagenic structural dissociation (SD), the publication of the TOSD (the Haunted Self) defines some EPs as elaborated; the EPs are the traumatized selves. I have trouble with this because of the required multiple ANPs to qualify tertiary SD.

If a self (as opposed to a self-state) can be an EP, some systems would qualify as having only one ANP, or possibly none at all. However, if a self is an ANP, each could have any number of associated EPs, or self-states.

Self-States

I like self-states because everybody has them, and it fills in some of the gaps left by the TOSD. Self-states aren’t inherently stuck in trauma, but a trauma-holding self-state would fit the phobia associated with traumagenic unintegration. It also leaves room for those who share self-states between selves, and for those whose selves contain multiple self-states without barriers between their states.

Elaboration occurs as self-states are collected within the boundaries of a self. Self-states are built out of experience, from tiny fragments of sensation or emotion to a developed set of reactions and behaviors to stimuli. It is one self-state when experiences are accepted in, like a mosaic. Some self-states have self-states, contained like marbles in a bowl. Some self-states are small, but uncontained, marbles rolling about all on their own.

Selves

Selves are differentiated from self-states by their sense of ‘me’ as opposed to the ‘not-me’ of the other selves. Some self-states develop a sense of ‘me’ with ease, and this is especially true in those whose boundaries were laid before the self-states of the body obtained a singular, collective sense of ‘me’ (which occurs around the time a body reaches double digits of age).

The Haunted Self notes traumagenic SD occurs more easily in children, but does not give the age of every patient used as an example. Several of the EP self-states are elaborated, and some have their own selves. The ambiguity is in how old the bodies were when these selves formed, and an EP with a self formed after 12 would be synonymous to a CDD formed after the cut-off age.

This is part of why we believe non-traumagenic plurality is possible, but there is another; if a self-state is unintegrated (and non-traumagenic dissociation is scientifically recognized), elaboration can be achieved by adding experiences. Having a self to stick to encourages elaboration, and self-states can get that by introspecting.

New Selves

Self-states that coalesce (or otherwise don’t integrate into other selves) before forming a sense of ‘me’ might explain how some selves are elaborated as soon as they appear. Self-states that never form a self might remain as marbles rolling around free, for any self to bring into its boundaries while out in the body or to front alone for specific scenarios.

Selves always have dissociative boundaries; by definition, dissociation is non-association, unintegration (which is how systems who work on lowering barriers can go between having boundaries and not, they’re integrating).

Amnesia

I would say memory barriers between selves who were at front and selves who weren’t differs from amnesia; they didn’t forget, they just weren’t there. The selves that weren’t there might have left because the brain was expecting trauma, or because their front can only hold one self at a time. Keeping these memories separate involves keeping them within the boundaries of a self, and those memories are smaller self-states like the marbles in the bowl. Amnesia as a self losing memories they once had is more like removing those self-states from the boundaries of that self.

Not all selves have memory barriers between them, or amnesia for memories they had. A body can have either function, both, neither, or a mix between different selves.

An Invitation

Our system functions very visibly within these parameters, and we can scale up or down to any feature we have. One day, I’d like to write a more professional introduction of our theory, but for now I’ll settle for introducing the language.

I’d like to know how this does or doesn’t fit you, because the goal is to find words that work for every version of unintegration. If you have something to say, any format (reblogs, comments, direct messages, posts, anything) is appreciated.

#osddid #did osdd #cdd system #adaptive system #traumagenic system #polyfragmented system #pluralgang #plurality #tosd

6 notes · View notes

multiplicity-positivity · 9 months

Note

hey, i wanted to ask a question, i don't know if it's silly though. i also want to emphasize that i'm not trying to discredit anything, i'm just curious, as a system.

but, if the tosd says did is from personality states not fusing, but instead forming barriers around said states, why do did systems split new people? wouldn't there be a set amount of headmates? does the tosd explain this?

(i don't have any way to read the tosd, as it's inaccessible to me due to me not being able to understand complex words and long text. this is why i'm asking)

Hi! This is a great question, and we’ll try to answer it - keep in mind that we’re not experts ourselves and so our understanding of the TOSD may be limited! This post may get long. We’ll break it up into small paragraphs for ease of access!

So when a child is regularly abused, or is traumatized without the support from a caregiver and no ability to process their emotions correctly, they may dissociate in order to cope with overwhelming situations. When kids are forced to dissociate often enough, they may develop a dissociative disorder as a result.

Dissociation means disconnection. In this case, it means a child disconnects from their emotions, their surroundings, their physical body, and sometimes reality itself, when going through something traumatic. When someone disconnects from something traumatizing, it makes it easier to bear and deal with it. Because in essence, it feels like it didn’t actually happen to them.

This means that instead of handling their traumatic memories, processing and coming to terms with them in healthy ways, they box these memories off and forget about them completely. Those memories belong to someone else - an alter, and a member of their system. In this way, kids can survive in otherwise unsurvivable environments.

Once a dissociative child reaches adolescence (or teenage years), their brains are already wired to dissociate whenever they are traumatized. So, rather than processing trauma, their brain automatically walls it off, generally causing a new alter to form in the process.

In this way, many systems with dissociative disorders tend to split and develop new alters well into adulthood. The only way for this process to stop, is for them to receive the treatment they need. If a system learns how to properly handle and process their emotions and traumatic events, chances are they won’t have to dissociate to cope in the future. The less someone has to dissociate to cope, the less likely they are to form a new alter.

Does this make sense? This is why people with DID and other dissociative disorders may form new alters after childhood. It is a process that must begin in childhood, but once a child has a dissociative disorder, they will still have those same symptoms as long as they have to live without the support they need, and without a chance to heal.

We’re going to link a video by the CTAD Clinic on the development of alters in DID. It’s about 10 minutes long, but it uses an analogy that makes this process easy to understand! Of course, the focus of the video is on childhood, but remember that this process does not change in folks with DID until they’ve had the chance to learn how to process their trauma and negative emotions in healthy ways.

youtube

We hope this helps! Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have further questions. Again, we’re not experts by any stretch of the word - just a struggling system sharing what we’ve learned to the best of our ability!

🌸 Margo and 🐢 Kip

#dissociative identity disorder #did osdd #dissociation #alters #parts #tosd #trauma #abuse #long post

18 notes · View notes

plantcrazy · 1 month

Text

Updating blog

I'm updating my blogs, moving stuff around and getting all my story content over here + I figured if this blog is going to be my creative space blog & my main one is for general reblogging and posts, I might as well move my art over here too.

I've still got another 14 things to reblog, but those will be later so it's less of a wall of spam in one go ^^;

Enjoy the comic, that's Tales Of Stardust, my first story & comic (albeit a later iteration of it, I think that iteration is 2019 or 2020).

Later today there will be some more TOSD art coming, and my among us story An Imposter's Fate.

#update #tosd

2 notes · View notes

hollowpuff · 7 months

Text

|| The "Emotional" Part of the Personality ||

Summary: an EP is a part that encapsulates the complex mental systems involving traumatic experiences & memories, and is disconnected & disoriented from the life they live in the present.

EPs are the "threat response" & "autonoetic traumatic memory" activation systems of the mind. These systems include: fight, flight, freeze, fawn, pain-experiencing & pain-numbing, re-experiencing traumatic memories, being disoriented to the present, and "owning" memories.\...\- In primary structural dissociation, one EP includes all of these systems & subsystems. In secondary & tertiary structural dissociation, these systems are divided between multiple EPs, and different EPs can exhibit the same threat responses in different situations. Additionally, threat response systems are frequently activated in succession (eg. freeze to fawn to flight), and will often result in multiple EPs being active at the same time, with one "experiencing" EP, and one or more "observing" EPs.

Example: "freeze" EP is experiencing & personifying a traumatic situation, while "flight" EP and "fawn" EP are observing it.

The latter two are not personifying the experience, because "freeze" EP is not behaving the way "flight" EP and "fawn" EP would or want to. In this situation, all three EPs are active, because all three responses may be needed for the traumatic situation. Each EP is, essentially, "waiting their turn" to be active so that they can protect themselves through their threat response activation system.

When these parts are more autonomous & elaborated, it can cause conflict if multiple EPs are active at one time. One EP may be critical of another, and might take drastic measures, such as self-harm, to activate a different threat response system, and thus, a different EP.\...\- With regards to re-experiencing traumatic memories, EPs may remember only metaphorical representations of the trauma, a complete recall of the event, fragments of a single event, or similar aspects of multiple traumas recalled as only one memory or event.

Because the EP's memories are subjective reproductions of an event, and not an exact replica, different EPs may have vastly different perceptions & responses to the same traumatic situation. Two EPs may even have completely separate memories regarding a single event. Furthermore, the activation of traumatic memories will often obstruct access to other memories available to the ANP, resulting in the EP being unable to recall episodic, semantic, or even procedural memories. This restriction can cause EPs to become stuck in a loop of re-experiencing a traumatic event, with no way to orient themselves to the present.

If the EP can be re-oriented enough to gain access to non-traumatic memories, they can grow beyond their activation systems. The more an EP is activated by trauma-related stimuli, the more benign life experience they gain. After a while, they may begin to develop a set of personal memories unrelated to their trauma. This can cause an elaborated sense of self, resulting in an "Emancipated EP." In this case, the EP is able to expand their episodic, semantic, and procedural memories past what their activation systems demand of them, allowing the EP to have their own set of wants, needs, interests, and desires.

The Emancipated EP will continue to be activated by trauma-related stimuli, however, they may be able to re-orient themselves to the present on their own, and will begin to become activated through positive stimuli that is unique to their episodic memories. Emancipation may cause conflict with other EPs, as well as phobic ANPs. The more an EP is activated in daily life by benign stimuli, the more an ANP may feel out of control, or even threatened by the presence of the Emancipated EP, who still holds traumatic memories. However, an Emancipated EP is still not fully integrated with their present reality. While they have synthesized their traumatic memories & activation systems with their benign memories and personality, they are still activated & disoriented by trauma-related stimuli.

It's important to remember that EPs are representatives of threat response activation systems & autonoetic traumatic memories. EPs are never trying to make things difficult on purpose. Rather, they are responding to innate biological systems they have no control over. EPs are also greatly affected by something called "conditional triggers," specifically with regards to their activation, but that requires an entire thread on its own. I will reply to this tweet with that thread once I have it written.

A final note: please remember that DID is complex, and alters are not only their labels. It can be hard to define whether a part is an ANP or not, and you should never force labels onto your parts against their will.

Take what feels right to you, and leave the rest.

Common EP Roles/Experiences:

- apprehension/fear part

- pain-numbing part

- pain-experiencing part

- 4Fs of survival part(s)

- attachment-seeking part

- care-seeking part

- recuperation from injury part

- "sick" or "ill" part

- "negative" sexual part

- aggressive part

Common EP Feelings:

- extreme emotions

- psychosomatic pain

- intense sensory experiences

- feeling overwhelmed

- suicidal ideation or behaviors

- pervasive sadness

- grief, loss, & mourning

- hope & longing

- feeling as if "nothing good happens"

- desire for caregiving

All of this information was taken from the Theory of Structural Dissociation, as written in the original paper from 2004.

Source:

Please excuse any typos.

I am not a professional nor an expert.

✨️Transcribed from Twitter with permission from @/ColubridC✨️

#did/osdd #dissociative identity disorder #dissociation #other specified dissociative disorder #ToSD #psychology

3 notes · View notes

sysciety · 1 year

Note

Hey, feel free not to answer this if you don’t want to, but what are your opinions on the theory of structural dissociation? We’ve always found it confusing that people treat it as the definite reason DID exists when it seems to us to be completely unprovable, at least ethically. Looking through your blog you seem thoughtful and well researched, so I was wondering what your thoughts on that are, or if you could explain to us why the tosd is provable? Again, it’s okay if not. 😁

This got really long so if you want a tldr version send me another ask

I'll also say there are people more well versed in specifically this topic than I am and if I got anything wrong/something should be added they should step in and correct me

It's not provable due to ethical reasons, you're absolutely right.

However, it is falsifiable, which is something that all scientific hypotheses have to be in order to do research properly (Falsifiable in this instance would mean that you could have DID without experiencing structural dissociation). I won't go into the scientific method but basically everything in science (so including tosd) has to be tested using it to be considered worth holding any weight

TOSD is the theory of how dissociated parts exist in a person. I believe it was originally created in reference to ptsd/general responses to trauma and then later extended into CDDs

From my understanding, TOSD takes traits observed in people with dissociative disorders and essentially provides a reason of why they exist ('being traumatized separates an identity down into parts in order to function, and in CDDs the trauma was so early the parts were never together to begin with'). The TOSD didn't come up with these traits, it connected them. Disorganized attachment (key empirical symptom) was something proposed back in 1986, though its relation to DID is more recent. I'm not sure how long the connection to dissociation has been there, but based on a study I found from 1996 DID had been almost definitively linked to being dissociative in nature. It cites a quote that DID isn't about multiple personalities but "difficulty integrating aspects of personality." (Cited properly in article but for the sake of this it's from 1994).

Obviously only using one paper doesn't make a very strong argument. I'm not trying to convince you to believe TOSD is real but I hope this shows you that various aspects of it have been observed before it was suggested (Paper is from 1996, TOSD was proposed 1997).

Whether or not you believe this as the reason DID forms is up to you, but I personally believe it's the strongest contender as to why. We can't prove it, but we can take what we do know (empirical evidence) and see how it lines up (and how it doesn't! OSDD-1 notably doesn't line up with being secondary dissociation a lot even though it's 'supposed' to be). I'm sure if you look into it there are gonna be other suggestions on how DID forms and I honestly think you should look into them and form your own opinion if it's something that interests you

As to why some people call it the end all be all, it probably depends on who you're talking to and the level of nuance in the discussion. I know I used to talk to people who probably would have just told me it's "obviously correct" without elaboration but that doesn't really give you a why. So I hope this gave you some insight on why it gets related to DID, or at least why people like to call it the reason DID forms

Links to some stuff mentioned:

https://www.myptsd.com/gallery/-pdf/1-41.pdf (full paper from 1996)

http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/nijenhuis-2004.php https://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-3/manton/ (how disorganized attachment plays a role)

#osdd did #actually traumagenic #actually dissociative #tosd #ask

6 notes · View notes

circular-bircular · 4 months

Note

On the same note as your last post on the ToSD, I feel like pwCDDs who "don't apply" to the theory, feel like they don't apply because "apparently normal" and "emotional" are charged words and can be heavy to use, in a way. Like, our trauma holders are EPs in the interpretation of what an emotional part is, but they don't feel like they are emotional, so we don't use EP for them. Same with our hosts, or alters who don't remember the trauma, or alters who function better than everyone else, or in general everyone else who fit into what an ANP is but don't feel like they are apparently normal.

I don't know, it seems obvious to say this lmao but I think a lot of people with a CDD don't want to use ToSD terminology, and it's fine to use a different terminology just like parts/people language, you do you. But they also don't research what the ToSD actually says, they just assume "oh emotional part means they act like a child and have a chronic nervous breakdown going on" or "oh apparently normal part means they are so well adjusted and can't have problems ever"

^^^

Lord knows I’m at fault of this too. I need to look more into the ToSD as well. It wasn’t until within the last year that I started looking into what EP and ANP actually meant due to a friend of mine explaining that I didn’t actually need to ID with those labels.

So much of these communities are determined to make everything a label, and lord knows I’ve struggled with that too.

#syscourse #tosd

10 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 1 year

Text

I went on a rant to friends and now I'm posting it here

The ToSD as a "theory"

Instead of arguing about what a theory IS, let's talk about the actual phenomenon itself

Talking about what makes a theory a theory is pointless and only clouds the actual conversation that's trying to happen. It's misleading and dismissive. It's meant to silence people that support the trauma theory and to derail useful conversations

There's physical evidence supporting the ToSD

It's the most widely accepted trauma theory

Why are we arguing about it though-- Can you describe what the theory actually is? Does anyone even know what their issue with ToSD is? Can you actually explain your problem with it? Or are you just arguing because you know other people are arguing over it?

"It's ableist"

How?

"It doesn't account for endogenics"

It's not about endogenics, why would it do that

"It doesn't explain daydreaming--"

What is the author's definition of dissociation?

"It doesn't account for DA or DPDR-"

Yes, it does

In the field of psychology, the only things standing in its way are iatrogenesis/fantasy and the definition of dissociation, and the authors have clarified their definition, and iatrogenesis is... Disproven. Thoroughly.

There are actual brain scans that support the theory.

How much more evidence does it need before we can stop just dismissing it outright and derailing conversations into arguments about semantics?

Disproving the ToSD is about proving the fantasy theory-- ToSD is the prevailing theory for the trauma model vs the sociocognitive model

It's a talking point from early syscourse, back in the natural multiple period meant to support that DID/multiplicity was possible outside of trauma (at the time, the theory was known as the continuum of dissociation, and was mostly worked on by Braun), that's why there's no actual argument against it except, "it's just a theory"

The point is to just shut down the conversation

#syscourse #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #this isn't at anyone in particular #I'm just mad about the dismissive “it's just a theory” argument and thought my rant was okay

41 notes · View notes

feralsyscourse · 2 years

Text

Does anyone have any links to studies regarding the theory of structural dissociation, we would like to read those.

We know the basics of the theory but have yet to see any studies, and don’t know where to look for them.

#theory of structural dissociation #DID #dissociative identity disorder #DID system #DID community #OSDD #OSDD system #OSDD-1 #OSDD-1a #OSDD-1b #OSDD-1a system #OSDD-b system #plural #pluralgang #plural gang #endo safe #TOSD

33 notes · View notes

justanothersyscourse · 1 year

Text

Talking about the complexity of one thing does not negate the complexity of another

Talking about the complexity of tertiary SD does not negate the complexity of secondary SD, or the absurd complexity of dissociation in general.

Everything is complex.

All of it is confusing and frustrating.

However, in the context of CDDs, the discussion is centered around multiple ANPs and multiple EPs.

This does not make everything else "less than". Not less important, not simpler, not lite, not easier to treat or manage. Secondary SDs are still complex and they will always have a place and a platform in our communities.

#syscourse #actuallydid #actuallytraumagenic #actuallyosdd #did #osdd #ptsd #ToSD #structural dissociation

44 notes · View notes

system-of-a-feather · 1 year

Note

Hello, I’m curious about what this post means?

https://www.tumblr.com/system-of-a-feather/718445430628859904/ok-people-equating-the-theory-of-structural

If you don’t mind explaining, that is! Aren’t they both scientific theories? /gen

(I got to sleep in today weekends are great ;w; *is in a better mood and has energy to explain some to someone genuinely asking since this is a thing that hurts me about the internet and how they talk about science*)

"Aren’t they both scientific theories?"

Yes, but only in the way that you can say that apples and tomatos are both fruit (true) and should be put in a fruit salad (debatable by which study you go to and the context in which you discuss it) - or that fish and Chordata are both existing things (for those that don't know either through school or memes, "fish" don't exist claudistically / in taxonomy, they are a polyphylic group)

.... while I'm doing comparisons, I think its actually fair to say that its more inaccurate than comparing apples to oranges - its comparing apples and tomatos - but I digress that's just a distracting "heh" I thought of XD

Putting the analogies aside and explaining it properly - they are both "scientific" in the sense that they are both following and part of the very very very very broad term of "science". With that being said, science in practice and when understanding research - when talked about in such a general way - is much more an ideal and a concept like Bushido Code than it is an actual like.... Facts TM and Truths TM about the world.

When we talk about stuff like the theory of evolution, gravity, the scientific theories we easily and frequently label as "basically as close as you can get to fact" we are almost always talking about hard sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics - sciences that have a relatively simple / easy time (relatively) in terms of research design, validity, and verifying data. Hard sciences (again, relatively speaking) tend to collect and base their theories on unchangable, (relatively) simple functions of systems that they are investigating, and their data (relatively) are hard and firm as they are directly measuring an aspect of the system they are investigating and (comparatively) the concern on concept, criterion, face, predictive, external, internal, (etc) validity is not really as significant. The things that hard sciences are investigating are far more "unchanging rules of the world base in hard to accidentally or intentionally spoof measurements" than soft sciences.

Psychology - a soft science - doesn't (often) work on measuring hard and (relatively) unchangeable measures and is often measuring really large scale topics that aren't even really properly sure even 1) exists 2) if it is genuinely even a single thing or an emergent property (as in it comes out through the means of many other things interacting but on its own is not really a 'thing').

Because the measures are not (often) hard measures, they are often subject to ambiguity, bias, interpretation, and questions of how valid of a measure it even is (which isn't a "yes or no" thing, because you very very rarely have a perfectly valid measure in psychology - it is a lot more of how much you are willing to accept it as a decent enough of a measure).

Because measures are measuring things we don't even have a firm concept of ("things falling" for gravity VS consciousness??? what??? is??? it???), the very relation of the measure to whatever the researcher is trying to study and how they understand it has to be taken into account as well. (In the research community of DEDICATED researchers on memory (also often considered one of the more harder sciences in the soft science psychology) while starting to get to an agreement on it - can't even agree on what "memory" and "forgetting" is despite it being the heart of their main dedicated study. Read the discussion on decay vs retrieval)

Because of BOTH of those, psychology is almost ALWAYS up for debate within research, professional, and academic environments. There is always something wrong with someone's research design, variable measurement, analysis method, concept validity, or what the hell they are approaching shit with. (for example, some people in the field of memory don't believe you can retrieve repressed memories because there have been numerous studies that shows that in a research lab they could not get any adult and-not-stressed individuals to intentionally forget an elephant and show evidence of recalling it later within implicit, explicit, long term, or short term memory; I'm sure I don't need to explain why while this is "good evidence" and "science", that its fucking STUPID.) Even the best and most backed ideas in psychology - even in the ones that border closer to neuropsychology - are always genuinely up to debate within the research community.

Additionally, when we talk about biology, chemistry, physics, etc we are talking about fields of science that have existed for millennia (arguably biology has been around since humans have had society with people trying to understand the human body and animals around through what can be considered early scientific means) and at worst centuries (modern chemistry which is around the 1700s or 1800s). Psychology (which is also a large group and not a monolith) has only really been making significant scientific advancements in the tail end of the 1800s and mainly in the early 1900s which, when combined with the issue above makes for an entirely different way you have to approach how you talk about "theories". This is just a sheer numbers game in terms of how long some of these theories have been genuinely considered and challenged by more individuals and also by letting the research fields grow properly.

That is all generally speaking in regards to PSYCHOLOGY. If we are talking about developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology (which would probably be the best specific fields to label the claims the ToSD makes) we have to keep in mind that we are operating in a field that has soft measurements, complex and possibly non-existent concepts they are measuring, and - if we are being real - people who actually are interested in helping and caring for mentally ill people rather than putting them in a hell asylum for debatably give or take a century. A good number of the people who started genuinely giving an interest in actually treating and understanding (with good intent) the mind of mentally ill people could still be alive today. Additionally, its a field that compared to other fields is relatively small in the workforce of people interested in exploring it. Then you have to pull it down to the specifications of dissociation and trauma disorders in those areas and you have that even more so + that the concept of "what is DID" is a WHOLE other thing and that one I won't explain on cause I am in the dunning kruger pit of despair of how that works and I refuse to act like I know what the fuck is going on there and am ok staying in my lane until I resume my education and talk to more experienced people in the field with my 5000 questions.

I had something more to say on this but I lost my train of thought and flow of this specific one cause my bird distracted me and I've been sitting here for 5 minutes trying to remember it and I'm just gonna give up on picking up that train of thought because even if I do I think itll be incoherent with what I wrote above - but they are really non-comparable.

They both use the word "theory" in a similar manner, but it's like grabbing an American and a British person and saying "chips" or "football". You will get a "snack probably made potatoes" but you will very likely not get the same thing because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips". You will get a game where multiple people play against eachother using a ball to get points on a board - but you will absolutely not be able to get an American team of football players and British football players on a field to play a cohesive game against each other because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips".

You can talk about apples and tomatos like they are fruits, but when you breakdown what a "fruit" is for each of those. Apples are fruits in almost every field afaik. Tomatos - while fruits - are not fruits in more softer / artistic fields like culinary, and that is where you have to understand the context of the field you are specifically talking about to understand that on a professional level you REALLY should not put a tomato into a fruit salad.

You can talk about fish as a concept as something that obviously exists and that there is research obviously there proving that fish are physically there and an existing phenomenon - but you would be laughed at to state that there is hard scientific proof that fish exist JUST as much as there is hard scientific proof that the Class Chordata exists because 1) what the fuck is a "fish" defined as is up to debate 2) there is a lot of evidence that would suggest that trying to group something as a "fish" is hard to do and absurd.

It's an issue of understanding the context of the term "theory" in respect to the field it is in. It's about understanding that while "theories" are both the "same" thing, the practical application and specific interpretations of the term in their respective fields are drastically different even by the people who are studying it for a living. It's an issue of understanding that even within the same field, the subfields have different context and approaches and guidelines for research that has them coming to different conclusion. It's an issue of understanding that one field is trying to understand often intangible and blurry concepts BY DESIGN (as it is impractical to try to understand shit like DID to the atomic level) and another is operating in investigating a harder and more concrete concept.

You can go into physics, chemistry, and biology and there are concepts you will find that no researcher would really question (unless they are in the really innovative end where they go so deep that the specifics of those are questioned). You can't do that for psychology - and for a lot of the things you think you can for psychology - I would probably be willing to bet you that there is a valid research opposition. You can do that even less for developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology, and even less for dissociation and trauma and that is solely because dissociation and trauma research is dependent on other sub fields like memory, consciousness, identity, etc that are SUPER not established. If researchers can't agree what MEMORY and FORGETTING is; if researchers can't agree if CONSCIOUSNESS even EXISTS; if researchers are clueless as to what the fuck identity is and how the brain generates it - then who the fuck are we to say we know fuck all about DID (which requires all three for those combined) to the same level we understand gravity or evolution.

The theory of structural dissociation is far more a practice-orientated theory to help in the practical immediate because currently the field is too young and confused to have a genuine "this is KNOWN scientifically" consensus - and the ToSD works pretty well for practical uses but you have to acknowledge that it only does so by ignoring five bajillion holes and assumptions it has to make to work. It's laughable to compare something that is a practice-focused theory to something that is a hard dedicated 'universal truth' seeking theory like gravity.

(Which is not to say it is invalid or wrong or anything, see the above conversation on validity in psychology, but that you have to take it with a grain of salt understanding that it is assuming things about memory, consciousness, identity, etc that we REALLY don't even know exists; and this is a GOOD and FAIR trade off because the intent is for practicality and treatment for people that are clearly dealing with SOMETHING rather than a genuine question of what does and does not exist because in clinical psychology there is very very little point in trying to prove something exists because the goal is to TREAT and find ways to help people with whatever it is they are dealing with. You are expected to do some handwaves and generalize concepts for the sake of practicality and application, its just that you have to understand that you are choosing to lower its reliability and validity in name of practicality and application)

-Riku

-----

Post cut comments and thoughts / points that came into my head that I wanted to put in but never got the opportunity.

Another thing worth considering, if I told you that for five billion dollars, I needed you to get me a list of every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting gravity OR every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting ToSD - which would you do? It'd be a fucking pain in the ass because ToSD is decently supported by a number of individuals, but god hell no would I waste my time even trying with gravity. The list would be larger by an order of multitudes.

I always tell my friends that the field of psychological research is literally just professional discourse / syscourse. Everyone is chronically bitching at each other under their breaths and calling each other stupid and nitpicking the other people's small words and arguments in favor of their theory - and the thing is? They ALL are scientifically valid arguments because in psychology we don't know SHIT. In actual psychological research discourse it's a whole bunch of people slamming papers on the table and going "SEE. I'm right" and then someone picking up their paper and going "Actually your [insert type of validity and research design and concept] is stupid lol" and then slamming another study that accounts for it and supports their argument and then the first guy doing it BACK at him. Thats how the field of psychology works and its so fucking funny and amazing and thats what I LOVE about it. Its PROFESSIONAL discourse and some of the people in the field are the most fucking SNARKY and STUBBORN bitches in how they talk about other researcher's opinions in private but do their best to respect them in public and professionally because they DO respect their role and that their approach is still not only scientifically sound, but also invaluable to the accurate development and understanding of the concept at hand. They WANT to be right and to hold onto their opinion because they feel they are right so there is always this stubborn snark - but there is an agreed and shared mutual understanding that we all are just trying to get to the truth of an absurdly complex and possibly not even real topic and that back and forth is VITAL lifeblood to it.

In regards to #2, its one of the reasons I try to avoid any serious syscourse cause every time I see people saying things are "science" they are usually jsut throwing one psychological research paper or literature review down (maybe 5 if they are actually better at discussing it) and saying "these are FACTS" when - in the field of psychology and research - that is honestly only slightly better than just linking someone else's blog post as evidence. Yeah its more professional and actually based on data and research so its better than someone just saying "its real" but its hardly "facts" like people like to act like they are

This isn't a black and white issue where it either "is facts" or it is "invalid and non scientific" which is the main thing I really want to make sure is clear. We are NOT anti-ToSD but we are anti-"calling things facts when they arent". ToSD is the best that we know currently and it is incredibly helpful in reflecting generalized understandings of a vague concept and we can talk about things in "mosts" and "currently" but we absolutely can't be sitting here stating anything in absolutes because when people say "it just a theory" in THIS case, they are honestly probably more right than wrong because unlike gravity and evolution, ToSD does not have nearly enough support to live up to the standards and comparison of Gravity and Evolution - which is not bad or wrong - it's by design and serves its purpose, it just isn't made to be used Like That.

#alter: riku #research posting #nerd posting #scientific literacy #ask #asks #syscourse #discourse #syscourse tw #discourse tw #riku rambles #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #long post #research

2 notes · View notes