The terms "plurality", "multiple", "system" flourish everywhere on youtube and other platforms. Lately videos on Konbini or other showing people with DID have been very visible...
I wrote an article in response to this:
a blog post from 05/31/2021, TDI and Konbini testimony
Here is a very interesting article that I advise you to read which gives some explanations and helps me to better understand my perceptions, misunderstandings and anger vis-à-vis some of these testimonies.
Here is the link to this article:The online community: DID and plurality - ScienceDirect .
The author, Emily Christensen explains the emergence of the "TDI community and plurality", the advantages that result from it as well as the problems. It gives leads for understanding the TDI fashion phenomenon that is spreading on the internet and the different distinctions within this "community".
Here are the distinctions she makes: "In the online community, there seem to be three main groups: people with traumatic, traditional, clinical or partial DID or OSDD; people with false positive DID, malicious DID , dummy DID, or imitation DID, or sociogenic DID; and people who identify as "plural", although they do not suffer from DID and are not upset by plurality, but who find it useful to refer to themselves as "plurals".
Here is another excerpt: "This raises the concern of online presentations of Plurals that lack traditional and traumatic DID, adding to the biases of clinicians already wrongly critical of the concept of DID. Although this goes beyond the scope of this article, it is a sociogenic phenomenon already noted with the Tik Tok platform and other disorders such as Tourette's (Olvera et al., 2021; Muller-Vahl et al., 2021; Vera et al., 2021) So far, in TDI-specific literature, it has been described as a false positive for TDI (Pietkiewicz, Bańbura-Nowak, Tomalski, & Boon, 2021), with clinical findings on which we will come back to later in this article.
This third group tends to have a highly developed sense of political identity as Plurals and they present very differently in session than those with dissociative disorders. In exploring a clinical profile for this population, some distinctions include presentation in the clinical setting with self-diagnosed DID or OSDD1b (OSDD being another specified dissociative disorder, and 1b indicating "no amnesia", which would correspond to "partial DID as ICD-11 6B65 by World Health Organization, 2020), requests for specific models of therapy, candid discussions of clinicians' views on integration, specific requests for functional multiplicity as a goal of processing rather than integration, and a very high number of alters and "sub-systems", of which they are already aware and with which they are able to communicate or interact in various ways - including internal relations, where Quirks can date or even marry, raise families together (including birthing new Quirks, and having pets).
This group often has a very elaborate inner world with richly detailed relationships where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as an awareness of where they don't have access and why. They are likely to have a high number of "fictional" Quirks, which is explained below, but included extended and detailed stories from movies or video games. Often the development of the inner world and the relationships between parts is something Plurals enjoy and find soothing, which is distinct from those with dissociative disorders, who are generally phobic of their inner world and their interaction with others. 'other parts. This description may be their experience of plurality, but does not fit the clinical definition of TDI, partial TDI, or OSDD1b. This corresponds to what Eli Somer has described as “maladaptive daydreaming” (Bigelsen, Lehrfeld, Jopp, & Somer, 2016; Soffer-Dudek & Somer, 2018; Somer, 2002; Somer, 2015; Somer & Jopp, 2016). Somer actively seeks out these connections, as well as responding directly to the Tik Tok and Plural community."
Here she raises a problematic point about the fact that it stigmatizes DID and "confirms" people and health professionals who deny the existence of this disorder: "Traditional and traumatic cases of DID have been well documented, with recommendations that include a psychodynamic and phase-based treatment model in accordance with current guidelines Cases of sociogenic plurality are only beginning to be discussed in the literature, are distinct from trauma cases, and current guidelines do not not apply for these reasons.
As for the question about people online who can "faking" or pretending, maliciously or not, Barach (2021) reminded the clinical community that factitious disorder occurs when a person fakes symptoms or pretends to have a diagnosis she doesn't have to get treatment, and persistence is when someone fakes a condition to get money or avoid legal liability, etc. Discerning this is already part of the clinical assessment.
Likewise, the online community continues to struggle to balance support and inclusivity with the harm done by those who mimic DID, all of which impact both stigma and clinical care, such as we will see it later."
They speak of a disorder, "maladative daydreaming" or "compulsive daydreaming" which could be an explanation for some people who present themselves as having DID but not meeting the DSM criteria.
If you want to better understand this phenomenon, here is an article that talks about it:
And here is a site bringing together practitioners who study this phenomenon:
The goal here is not to deny the legitimacy or the veracity of the suffering felt by one or the other but to ask that everyone be recognized and taken care of adequately with specific care for their own disorder. and that the existence and the word of one does not deny or set back the recognition and support of others.