I read quite a bit about DID and "fake DID" these days.
On the one hand to understand why the theory of "false memories" is still relevant in the psychiatric world. And why this disorder is still so maligned. On the other hand because it is important for me to read and understand while trying to be objective about my own history and my own diagnosis. I know I have a DID. Now I no longer doubt it. I still have for a few minutes to have thoughts of negation, the desire that all this is false, the desire that my dissociative identity disorder disappear. But I can't, can't doubt anymore, can't deny anymore and pretend that everything I live in everyday life doesn't exist.
In addition, having grown up in a sect in which manipulation was omnipresent, I need to dissect, understand and see if I myself am still a victim of manipulation. I need to read about it to better understand my history, to understand the functioning of a sect and therefore to understand my experience. And I need to know to protect myself in my present and better discern what is internal alerts linked only to the past and unfounded in the present when I reactivate myself or if these worries have real reasons in my present.
And finally, by doing this I continue to "educate" my brain, my way of understanding the world and accepting that nothing is all black or all white. Before hearing these terms of "induced false memories" made me very angry, I switched and I was unable to read and remember anything about it. Now I understand and qualify my vision. I am no longer categorical. Given the number of charlatans who operate in the health sector, I understand better that this concept is still relayed by professionals. And given the major problem of defining clinical terms, diagnostic criteria that are sometimes far too vague that some use, it is possible that patients are misled. I understand it now. I read this article relayed by "the face in the bias" which is very interesting :
And I listened to this video :
It is a video of the channel "Fou de normandie" which speaks of psychotic and psychological disorders. I find his initiative very commendable. I do not know if he is a psychologist himself and what professional background he has, but I find that popularizing psychiatry and psychiatric disorders is a very good idea. I would really love to find a channel or blog that scientifically explains this. I really wish there were more professionals doing it. Having a psychological disorder is still very frowned upon in our society today and I think it would be in the public interest to popularize and properly inform people on this subject. I would also love to find a channel that explains and dissects the different scientific researches, explains the results, the biases, what data is of value and what are the gaps in the studies ... This would greatly help I think to better understand the value that we can give to science, what data is reliable and what is still in the field of research avenues ...
In this video he talks about an article :"Revisiting False-Positive and Imitated Dissociative Identity Disorder" published you will find here : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637929/full
I find its presentation very light and I am quite disappointed.
This research attempts to define the criteria that can lead to suspect a false DID in a patient presenting as such. This study was carried out in Poland in 2018 and 2019. The participants were 6 patients aged 22 to 42 who were selected from 86 people examined in a larger study exploring dissociation and alterations in consciousness in clinical groups and non-clinical.
I find that taking a study on 6 people to make it into exclusion criteria for a diagnosis is a bit light ... It is a subject that deserves to be explored on a larger scale! And I think he should have mentioned it in his video to explain that this study is based on a very small sample and that it only represents a line of research to be explored to confirm the conclusions that were drawn from it. .
The beginning of the video is very good, it explains the complexity of making a diagnosis in view of the rather vague criteria of the DSM and the CIM. And I quite agree with him. DID represents a percentage between 1 and 3% of the general population and the psychiatric world has still not found a conclusive treatment and does not understand much about it yet since very little research has been done on this disorder.
He explains that for DID, what will lead to the diagnosis is what "reports the patient" and therefore that the patient or the practitioner may be wrong about the diagnosis or the symptoms. For DID, it is all the more difficult as we tend to mask or hide our symptoms. A DID will start by coming to see a psychologist or psychiatrist for other reasons (suicide attempt, self-mutilation, addictions, depression ...), it is therefore difficult to "spot" us from the first appointment ...
Then, it lists the 5 elements which allow "to detect" the "false DID. In fact, it very simply takes again the headlines of the article without mentioning anything of the development which is done there. Which is a shame since suddenly it does not mention the "real" criteria excluding a diagnosis of DID ... Here is what he lists as criteria based on the headlines of the study mentioned above (in quotes, I repeat what he says in his video) :
Approval and diagnostic identification :"People who think they have this diagnosis is something that is important to them, they strongly recognize themselves, they are very involved in the recognition of having this diagnosis".
Use the notion of dissociative parts to justify identity confusion and conflicting ego states :"The notion of having multiple identities justifies the conflicts that exist in them and with respect to others.".
Explore personal experiences through the lens of dissociation :"The more people learn about the symptoms, the more their way of reporting their symptom is linked to the diagnosis.".
Talking about DID attracts attention :"The subject of DID becomes obsessive, they talk about it all the time".
Avoiding DID leads to disappointment or anger :"Not to be recognized is very disappointing, makes them angry. "He then compares telling a patient that he is not DID to telling a patient who believed he had cancer that'in fact he does not have it. He therefore draws a parallel between a fatal disease (cancer) which inevitably cannot be welcomed (the fact of not having it) only positively .... to the fact that patientswho would not be DID govern poorly unlike patients learning that they do not have cancer.
He forgets to mention the rest of the article and is confined to the headlines, which is a shame since the rest of the article lists the TDI criteria that are important :
Intrusions (intrusive memories, emotions or sensorimotor sensations contained by dissociative parts that are stuck in the trauma)
Voices (auditory hallucinations: Voices generally belong to dissociative parts and comment on actions, express needs, likes and dislikes, and encourage self-harm)
Triggers (It is rare for avoidant dissociative patients to present autonomous dissociative parts to a therapist before a good relationship has been established and the phobia of inner experiences is reduced. Sudden changes between dissociative personalities can only occur when the patient is triggered and cannot exercise enough control to hide their symptoms.)
Amnesia (amnesia for pleasant or neutral activities (for example, shopping or cleaning, socializing))
Use of language (Participants in this study often used clinical jargon, however, they often had a layman's understanding. Asking patients for specific examples is therefore crucial.)
Depersonalization (descriptions of strong evidence of extreme forms of depersonalization)
He is not entirely accurate in his return from the study and I find that a shame!In italics, I use quotes from the study.
For example, for the criterion he lists first: Approval and identification in the diagnostic
If you read what is reported in the study, patients say they have no memories of the trauma.("they could not trace any significant traumas in their early childhoods", "but I don’t feel I had any horrific memories which I threw out of my consciousness.").
This exclusion criterion is quite delicate if we do not make things a little more explicit! Identifying oneself with one's diagnosis is quite common I think as a way of reacting ... I think that anyone who learns what they have will identify with it and inevitably will look at the months, the previous years with regard to what 'he learns and understands from his illness. A patient who wanders in the medical services for years without anyone finding what he has, then if he finally comes across a specialist who finds what he has will necessarily be relieved and "happy" to finally have answers, a name to put on what he lives and feels. And inevitably the patient will do research to understand, find out more ... Psychiatric patients take an average of 7 years to be diagnosed correctly and to find a competent professional. So yes we need to hear our diagnosis, to finally know, to have some clues about what we are living, our difficulties, our disorders ... It therefore seems logical and human to me to need approval and identification.
Summarizing a disorder exclusion criterion to a natural human reaction of need for understanding is a bit too simplistic for my taste.Especially since DID represents between 1 and 3% of the general population and is underdiagnosed.
In addition, with a DID, some dissociative parts know the trauma and others are amnesic or phobic.I myself have had times where I said I had no memories of trauma.My "confession" part, my parts having the function of attaching themselves to the guru and "loving him" have long denied any violence suffered.But what made all the difference is that at the same time other parties came and contradicted them by recounting the abuse ... I think that's what will make the difference as a criterion.Dissociation, the fact that dissociative parts come to speak and say and that others do not know and deny.Our posture too, our gestures are clues ...
Then, for the second criterion that he lists: Using the notion of dissociative parts to justify identity confusion and conflicting states of the ego
Again, in his video he is not being honest.Again, patients identify themselves but do not talk about certain criteria ("Dominique neither had amnesia nor found evidence for leading separate lives and engaging herself in activities associated with her characters. In other parts of the interview, she referred to them as ‘voices inside,’ but admitted she never heard them acoustically. During assessment, no participant provided evidence for the existence of autonomous dissociative parts.). The explanation he gives in his video is very evasive and he does not cite the criteria that led the researchers to understand that these patients did not have DID.Keeping as a criterion excluding only the title of the chapter assigned to it and not reporting the fact that these people do not have amnesia, do not hear a voice ... is very reductive and misleading since it is these criteriathat make all the difference.
For the third criterion he lists: Exploring personal experiences through the prism of dissociation
Again, in his video, he simplifies things.I think that all patients in the light of their diagnosis will reflect on the previous months, years and will reread their story in the light of their diagnosis.I think what is important is the absence of symptoms and not the fact of re-reading his story through the prism of dissociation.In the study, what excluded the patients was the fact that they did not have amnesia, that they mentioned positive flashbacks (unrelated to trauma), did not exhibit shame or fear and seemedexperience pleasure when their "dissociative parts" show themselves unlike DID.
("She stressed that she never had amnesia and remained aware of what was happening during her ‘trance.’ While participants maintained they had flashbacks, they understood them as sudden recollections of past memories but not necessarily related to trauma. Participants discussed their dissociative parts, their names and features, exhibiting neither avoidance nor fear or shame. On the contrary, they seemed to draw pleasure by smiling, showing excitement and eagerness to produce more examples of their unusual experiences.")
For the fourth criterion he lists: Talking about DID attracts attention
Again, explaining that talking all the time about DID and that it is obsessive and reducing that to a need to attract attention is very reducing.I think it is not all that simple.I think there is a difference between wanting to attract attention in a sick way.And finally wanting to be heard, seen, believed, supported after a life of suffering.Claim the right to justice, to the truth.Claim a quality care system.Claiming the right to be recognized as a full victim and survivor ...
I have had different stages and ways of responding to my diagnosis.I started out with denial.Then by talking about it to those around me so that they validate certain things, that they confirm certain memories.I needed to talk about it around me to see if I was crazy or if people outside confirmed me this diagnosis.It worked in waves.Denial, negation, forgetting, realizations, amnesia which was being resolved, better being then again doubts, refusal, internal conflicts ... All with very big crises of anxiety, terror, ill-being after each discussionor disclosures.
Now I'm talking about DID.I pay more attention in what context I talk about it and with whom.I am better able to put filters and protect myself.I created this website anonymously.I feel safe and move at my own pace in the face of the anxieties and terrors, feelings of imminent death that I can sometimes feel when I speak.I feel more and more entitled to say, I manage to regulate my emotions better and to discern my security in my present.
I find that reducing "talking" to a diagnosis of "false DID" is misleading.There are different stages.Different awareness.The fact that DID is so misdiagnosed that so many people deny its existence angers me.Now I want to talk, I want to inform.For me, for the innocent little girl that I was.I think what is important is to listen to the history of the person and what it generates in them to be forward publicly, what battle they have to fight to get there.I think that's what makes it possible to know if the person is "pretending" or not.
Anyone who experiences something difficult in their life will tend to talk about it over and over again. A person who has cancer will talk about their chemo, their disease and have difficulty having other topics of conversation, which is normal ... Maybe, if they are in remission, will they invest in a association to publicize the disease that she has had in order to improve the treatment, to develop research on the subject ... Personally, I speak of DID because I want to change things, improve our management ... The treatments offered to us do not satisfy me and are very long-term treatments. How many years have I wasted wondering if I was crazy? How many years have I struggled wondering why I was acting this or that way, why I was paralyzed at times, why I had to flee in certain situations, why my present and my past are a real Gruyere in my memory? Talking about DID is essential! The concept of dissociation has been known for a very long time! It is a scandal that so many people like me have been abandoned, their suffering denied !!! How many have died because they did not find anyone on their way to help them understand each other?
Afterwards, I agree with this criterion concerning the youtube channels or other in which people put themselves in scene and make believe that the DID is something fun and funny.Yes, for me, in this case it is a criterion.DID is a cover-up, a way to survive.It takes several years for a DID to succeed in "showing off" and explaining what is going on inside of him.And we will always have this reflex of hiding and camouflaging our dissociative parts until we have the certainty of being safe in front of the one with whom we are speaking.Making "switches" on demand is simply impossible for me.I switch because one of my dissociative parts is reacting to something in my present.I am unable to stand in front of a camera and switch to either of my parts just like that, without "stimuli".
Fifth criteria he lists: Avoiding DID leads to disappointment or anger
Well, I find its comparison to cancer irrelevant and unrelated. Obviously, learning that you don't have cancer is a relief. But we cannot compare a serious and fatal illness with a psychiatric diagnosis ... A psychiatric diagnosis does not kill ... After that again, I think that this criterion should be specified. Given the few people diagnosed with DID and the lack of professional training to screen it, a true DID person could be mistakenly diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar. And of course she would be angry and upset if the professional once again denies what she's been through and denies her symptoms! In an ideal world where the majority of psychiatrists would not be psychoanalysts and would have a good training on dissociation, this criterion could be valid but unfortunately in France it is far from being the case! And it would also be good for society to change its outlook on psychiatric disorders because if schizophrenia or bipolarity were better perceived, people would be less ashamed and would be less in search of another diagnosis! If mental illnesses weren't associated with insanity, weakness, or systematic crimes, perhaps patients would not seek another diagnosis ...
Comments