syscourse, abuse mention, long
if you say that it's been scientifically proven that trauma causes multiplicity you either don't know what scientifically proven means or know of, and endorse, horrific abuse and presumably illegal experimentation.
to prove causation scientifically* entails an experiment with a control and test group and comparing the difference between the two.
in terms of sorting out causation of multiplicity that means purposely traumatizing a, fairly large if you want a decent effect size, group of children for years, in order to see if they end up plural. that is not only horrifically unethical and evil, there is no way to get that past an ethics board which means its never going to be done.
also science still can't agree if multiplicity is a real thing, so if you say that there is a fucking consensus on the cause you have no what you are talking about.
re: syscourse, abuse mention, long
*theoretically you could compare systems with no trauma history to trauma based ones to non systems with trauma and non systems without but brain imaging being what it is you need to know the areas you want to look at and we don't actually know exactly what brain architecture is involved in dissociation.
this makes it prohibitively difficult to do the above since for an accurate picture of the differences you would need to compare everything if you don't know the specific areas. which would be a ridiculous amount of work in a two way study with enough people for a decent effect size let alone a 4x4 design like above
re: syscourse, abuse mention, long
this is my brain food. gears turning.
- Diss / (unnamed)
1. There’s no evidence that an infant’s “personality” “forms” or “comes together”, because we can’t prove that babies have much of a personality. Outside of a VERY limited range of responses to an independent variable, there’s no way to show that personalities “cohere” by a certain age.
2. That fucking age cutoff. “Your trauma has to have occurred before the age of x” bitch gtfo.
On the science part, I believe it is a lack of proper 'control' and 'variable' problem, as @aquariussystem had pointed out, along with ethnical violations and lack of reliable data and statistics.
Society deciding what is normal or not, then attempting to stigmatize, hide, or eliminate people who don't fit in the "normal" circle ---
unfortunately that kind of behavior has affected our science and medical professions and worlds because, in the fact, we all are humans (or residing in human bodies) regardlessly.
@dissociation @setsuna one thing we have noticed is that in many cases those using science as a basis for exclusion; in syscourse, transmed stuff, and many others; tend to distort and misinterpret a lot of scientific opinions as well as ignoring the last five years or so.
while some of it is definitely intentional i do think some of it is a genuine lack of understanding. not everyone has access to the latest papers and news, and with the age of a lot of them i don't expect a high level of scientific literacy, given how many are high school age and younger. that's not a super common skill to have been taught then and as a someone who at that age did manage to get a hold of papers and university textbooks (go library book sales) its really not easy to teach yourself.
also, that beloved science doesn't listen to the same authors everywhere in the world. as a person from Scandinavia, i can tell you our psychiatrists don't have NEAR the same views on DID/OSDD/systems in general. in fact, the majority i've met are still grasping the believing it exists part.
re: syscourse, long
singlets grasping the belief of plurals/multiples existence is difficult because I feel that singlets assume it is impossible to be a contributing / well functioning citizen and a stable being for people to rely on if you are not "yourself" all times if you have people residing in your body.
but what ironic is that they all dont always fit ALL of these descriptions (stable, reliable, etc) they expected to be.
in middle of the talk with my girl last night about our system, she was hurt about the fact that not all of us have feelings nor love her and asked if it is possible for us to have feelings to her. Said stuff about cannot rely on me (Eric), etc.
I told her that it is not possible because we dont know - we all are separate beings, not one, we share same body and we gotta communicate and work together. We are still figuring out which have feelings to her so that we can get him to front more occasionally to her.
yeah, dating as a system is unbelievably hard for this very reason. i'm at awe at the ones who get a monogamous relationship to work between a system and a singlet.
right?! I can't even imagine how we can be a monogamist because, for example we have George, who is gay.
sexuality is a spectrum and its extremely sad of how people are so unaccepting toward what we are sexually attracted to
this is an example of how weird and interesting Mastodon is.
each posts under same status can have their own threads! like reddit, but you gotta click to view them =F
@dissociation it's also rare every single system member is attracted to the same person, and what your girl said is very guilt-inducing... even we struggle though our orientations and preferences all come to 'men are cool'
yep @ rarity and guilty-inducing
luckily, I was able to handle that and explained things to her patiently, while other systemmates probably likely wouldn't do the same
We had decided to just set our body (Eric)'s default sexual orientation as queer so that we will not have to "advertise" our complicated our sexuality preferences
Plural Café is a community for plural systems and plural-friendly singlets alike, that hopes to foster a safe place for finding and interacting with other systems in the Mastodon fediverse.
If you are interested in signing up: please put whether you are a plural system or singlet in the "Why do you want to join" box. This is purely to ward off spam bots. If this is not answered, your request to join the instance will be rejected.