DID and tulpas are not as different as they are made out to be

[Abvieon]

You might be seeing the title and thinking that I am implying that tulpas are a bad thing, or that Dissociative Identity Disorder is a good thing - that is not what I am saying. Read on to see what I mean.

 

Most people in the tulpa community do not want the practice of tulpamancy to be associated or equated with Dissociative Identity Disorder, for good reason. DID is portrayed as a bad thing, and having tulpas compared to it worsens public reception of tulpamancy. However, they aren't quite as different as many would like them to be - because DID is closer to being a non-harmful thing than most think.

 

"Plurality" is a term used to describe any instance of more than one person existing within a single brain. Tulpas, as well as DID, fall under this category, because DID alters are no more or less people than tulpas are. So, seeing this, what makes the two different at all in the first place?

 

Most would say "dysfunction", or "DID is created by trauma" to answer this question. "Dysfunction" is partially correct, as one can only have DID if they experience regular dysfunction as a part of their plurality. "Trauma" is not correct, because it is possible to induce DID without any trauma whatsoever.

 

The one thing that makes DID different is: a lack of reliable communication between the different people in the brain. It is this lack of communication that causes the dysfunction that defines DID.

 

Those with DID typically have strong mental separation between themselves and their alters. This means that they may not share thoughts or memories with one another, and in many cases are not even aware of one another's existence. This strong thought and memory separation is not in itself a problem, as it is still possible to reliably communicate with one another in this scenario. In fact, a great number of DID systems have learned how to do so while still maintaining highly separate memories and cognition. Additionally, some well developed tulpas have a DID-esque level of memory separation between themselves and their hosts and do not experience the same dysfunction that DID systems do. Why is this?

 

It is clear that memory and thought separation is correlated with a lack of communication, but it not causative of it. The lack of communication is rather caused by the particular order in which "developmental milestones" are reached when an alter is coming into existence.

When creating a tulpa, one will first focus on the tulpa's vocality and being able to communicate with the tulpa. Because of this, a tulpa will be able to communicate with their host long before they achieve any significant memory and thought separation, as those things are not attempted before one is able to speak with their tulpa.

 

When DID forms, it is unintentional, and the host will not realize what is happening. As such, they will not have the knowledge that another consciousness is manifesting, and will make no effort to communicate with them. Because of this, no reliable method of communication is established during the alter's development. It may remain this way for a long time - after which the alter will have had enough time to become highly developed, gaining significant mental separation from their host.

 

Being able to reliably and consistently talk with the other people in your head is integral to preventing dysfunction. Even if you are able to hide memories from one another, as long as you are still able to communicate, the communication will make up for any missing information when, say, a tulpa or alter is fronting. Even if the host remembers nothing of what happened while the tulpa or alter was switched in, as long as the tulpa or alter is able to inform them of whatever they need to know, there will be no problems.

 

To sum it up: If strong mental separation is established BEFORE communication, dysfunction may occur. If strong mental separation occurs AFTER establishing communication, it will not.

 

Someone with a diagnosis of DID no longer even has a disorder if they have achieved reliable and consistent communication with their alters. The very thing that defines DID as a disorder would no longer occur, so it would be incorrect to say they have DID.

 

This is why DID and tulpamancy are more similar that they may seem. It is this thin line of reliable communication VS a lack of communication that separates the two. Tulpas and DID are two sides of the same coin.

[Luminesce]

Well first of all, DID stands for Dissociative Identity Disorder. It's automatically different from Tulpamancy. Following that, if someone's "DID" is not disruptive, it's not a disorder, and it's not DID. At that point, it could very well be similar to tulpamancy, or more likely any of the other plurality communities as tulpas are generally considered the purposely (or not) created entities, while alters and such just seem different. We barely even use the word plurality around here honestly. Regardless, they are similar, but the origin of a tulpa is overwhelmingly different than that of an alter/alternate personality/whatever you'd consider DID.

 

Second, DID is not necessarily related to Tulpamancy at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder#Diagnosis

For a host without the ability to switch with their tulpa, especially if they can't even do possession, there's almost no relation to DID. Just based on how DID is diagnosed. A tulpa is, by default at least, much more similar to an imaginary friend than an alter in a system with DID. I can't really stress that enough - almost without exception, the tulpa-host relationship is established and acknowledged before switching or full-body possession occur. Before that point, DID is utterly inapplicable. And since switching and/or full-body possession are basically always learned voluntarily, it's still very very iffy to relate a tulpamancy system to one with DID. Only in the rare cases where the host and tulpa do not share memories - which is as far as I can tell practically exclusively a thing with people who had "tulpas" before learning about tulpas - can you really compare them.

 

I know there certainly used to be more cases of that, but I haven't seen a one in recent years. So while they exist, I would strongly discourage using them as a basis to compare to Tulpamancy with.

 

But largely my point here is that, if you take the second D out of DID, it's no longer a disorder (and no longer DID). And people at that point are much more likely to simply be called a plural system, although plenty with actual DID could be considered plural systems too. But that would be done at their discretion, as by default we really shouldn't treat alternate personalities as separate people. That's what "Therapist-induced DID" is about, that therapists' (and really anyone that's talking about the subject) preconceptions about DID lead the patient to considering their alternate personality/identity states as separate individuals. I can't say whether that's a good or bad thing, but it is assumed to at least sometimes be the case where the patient wouldn't otherwise have considered it.

 

 

So the short answer is, as always, "Tulpamancy is not a disorder". Not because Tulpamancy was implied to be a disorder, but because a disorder was compared to it. The less the proposed Disorder is actually disorderly, the closer it can be compared to Tulpamancy (or other plurality phenomena), but then, the less a Disorder it is.

[jean-luc]

Surely being able to communicate doesn't magically solve everything. Don't you need willingness from all parties to listen and cooperate?

 

And the implication that everyone thinks DID and tulpas aren't two sides of the same coin is incorrect.

 

I was making some big long argument and I actually did a crazy thing and like actually researched and now I'm not sure of anything other than the fact that there's lots of disagreement. But I did find this an interesting read: http://www.isst-d.org/downloads/GUIDELINES_REVISED2011.pdf

[Abvieon]

But largely my point here is that, if you take the second D out of DID, it's no longer a disorder (and no longer DID). And people at that point are much more likely to simply be called a plural system, although plenty with actual DID could be considered plural systems too. But that would be done at their discretion, as by default we really shouldn't treat alternate personalities as separate people. That's what "Therapist-induced DID" is about, that therapists' (and really anyone that's talking about the subject) preconceptions about DID lead the patient to considering their alternate personality/identity states as separate individuals. I can't say whether that's a good or bad thing, but it is assumed to at least sometimes be the case where the patient wouldn't otherwise have considered it.

 

All those with DID are plural systems, because a plural system is defined as multiple people in one brain. As I said, a DID alter is no less of a person than a tulpa is. Someone's personal perception of their alters does not change that - even if they don't want to acknowledge their alters as such, their alters are still separate people. 

 

The very fact that taking the second D out of DID makes it not a disorder it what makes it so similar to tulpamancy. It shows how thin the line between the two is, and that it doesn't take much to make them one in the same.

---

Surely being able to communicate doesn't magically solve everything. Don't you need willingness from all parties to listen and cooperate?

 

If communication is established long after DID started causing issues, that is often true. Though, if there were to be communication from the very beginning of an alter's existence, it is likely that the issues that define DID would never have developed in the first place.

[Luminesce]

All those with DID are plural systems, because a plural system is defined as multiple people in one brain. As I said, a DID alter is no less of a person than a tulpa is. Someone's personal perception of their alters does not change that - even if they don't want to acknowledge their alters as such, their alters are still separate people.

 

Why do you think that? It's not even close to true. It's just a preference of perception. There's only one person per person, objectively speaking. Saying that alternate personalities for a person with DID are always separate people means one single person with DID who considers those personalities simply different parts of their same self is wrong. That's just totally subjective, opinion, or arbitrary, whichever word works best here. By default, the assumption all personalities are only one person should be a given. Considering one person capable of being multiple people is an emergent idea. You can push for its universal acceptance, but don't pretend it's a fact. Then people would have to push in the opposite direction to be considered only one person by their choice when they have multiple personalities.

 

Yeah, I can't really just stand for pushing that idea on people, no matter how pro-tulpa I am. My system's given over a thousand instances of advice or information on tulpamancy, but fair is fair. The idea that a single human can be more than one "person" is an idea that must be accepted as an alternative to the common given reality. Trying to spread the belief that something you want to be accepted actually is the case while the opposing belief is incorrect is counterproductive to open-mindedness. Does that make sense? It's not that big of a deal, I just want to be clear on my reasoning.

 

The very fact that taking the second D out of DID makes it not a disorder it what makes it so similar to tulpamancy. It shows how thin the line between the two is, and that it doesn't take much to make them one in the same.

 

Okay but.. There's a big difference in something being a disorder or not. Unique or strange tastes in food versus an actual eating disorder, et cetera. Perhaps, if the disorder can be brought under control, you can really have just the DI without the second D (coming from a full DID). Perhaps as in per individual case, obviously it's possible in general (and hopefully common).

 

So anyways, my problem with this is still that you're trying to compare DID and tulpamancy. What you're actually trying to say is Dissociative Identity Disorder, when brought under control (or not disorderly in the first place) can be healthy Plurality. That I agree with. But yeah, you shouldn't focus on the relation to tulpamancy in specific so much (although you can share the topic here, it's still relevant). Tulpas are a teeny bit removed from plurality in that a lot of the time tulpas are more "artificial" systemmates than those of other origins. Not a problem in their legitimacy as people, so much as tulpamancy is more concerned with "crafting" systemmates while, I think, most other plurality communities believe in more natural means. I don't really know much about those communities though, never been part of one, that's just my best guess.

 

But like I said, plurality is still relevant enough to tulpamancy for this topic to be relevant, so that's fine. I just recommend expanding your definitions from tulpas a bit, and to keep in mind the primary difference between tulpamancy or healthy plurality and Dissociative Identity Disorder is the Disorder part. I'm pretty sure not many people disagree that a DID system is a plural system, or at least can be if the personalities consider themselves separate identities from each other.

[Abvieon]

Why do you think that? It's not even close to true. It's just a preference of perception. 

 

But like I said, plurality is still relevant enough to tulpamancy for this topic to be relevant, so that's fine. 

 

I think there is a difference in how we define plurality. As I mentioned in my original post, I define it as any instance of multiple people in one brain, which covers a very broad range of things. Many others define plurality in this way as well. When it comes to the community's opinions at large, the idea that plurality is not such a broad term is in the minority from what I've seen.

 

The idea that someone's preference of perception decides what their systemmates are or are not doesn't make sense. That is equivalent to saying that if someone with a tulpa were to suddenly stop considering the tulpa a person, then the tulpa would automatically regress into being an imaginary friend and stop being sentient or stop existing. Sure, a host could convince themselves that was the case, but the tulpa would still exist as it did before. The host's belief wouldn't change anything about what the tulpa was.

[jean-luc]

The idea that someone's preference of perception decides what their systemmates are or are not doesn't make sense. That is equivalent to saying that if someone with a tulpa were to suddenly stop considering the tulpa a person, then the tulpa would automatically regress into being an imaginary friend and stop being sentient or stop existing. Sure, a host could convince themselves that was the case, but the tulpa would still exist as it did before. The host's belief wouldn't change anything about what the tulpa was.

 

Belief does abosolutely change things within the mind. It's hard to really determine if a tulpa is in a mind without the host's cooperation. A host that has a tulpa but believes they don't would eventually not have a tulpa.

 

I'm not saying that belief is the single determiner of things; After all, no matter how much I believe that Henry speaks Russain, I as a system still won't be able to act as a russain interpreter. There is some true state of things, but determining that is basically impossible.

[Abvieon]

Belief does abosolutely change things within the mind. It's hard to really determine if a tulpa is in a mind without the host's cooperation. A host that has a tulpa but believes they don't would eventually not have a tulpa.

 

Belief is capable of altering things in the mind, yes. Belief doesn't directly dictate a tulpa's existence, though - if a host were to stop believing in their tulpa, it would be the lack of attention and forcing resulting from that loss of belief that makes the tulpa fade away, rather than the belief itself. The host does not have absolute control over the tulpa's mind. Additionally, there are many tulpas who no longer need attention or forcing of any kind to maintain their existence. Their mind has become comparable to their host's mind in terms of strength and persistence. In such a case, belief would do absolutely nothing to the tulpa. It'd be like the tulpa trying to get rid of the host with belief.

[Luminesce]

Dunno what you're talking about with the definition of plurality, I agree and am not sure I posed any different definition. All I said on that was you were talking about tulpas being similar to DID, where I figure you should be saying "healthy plurality" in general is similar to DID. Tulpamancy is just another type of plurality, the main difference (in community) being the fact that we specifically emphasize the creation of system members where, I think, other communities don't. But I'm not sure.

 

But, what I'm saying otherwise is that you're saying it's impossible for one individual to have multiple personalities. You're literally saying there's no such thing, and one individual with multiple personalities automatically has multiple identities that must be considered systemmates rather than facets (even this word is iffy because it's used so much in plurality, though) of themself. I'm saying that that shouldn't be the case. The idea that one person can be considered multiple is an emergent idea, as in the open-minded belief that people would be pushing for right now, like gay rights and such. But giving no choice in the matter, saying that one person with multiple personalities can only be multiple people, is like saying being straight is wrong and everyone should be gay. To me, it's as obvious as that, that it's completely wrong to say and not open-minded at all. You're supposed to say there's a choice.

 

You obviously believe that innately alternate personalities should be considered alter systemmates, but that's only your preference in perception. Because like I said before, objectively speaking there's only one individual per person. The act of treating alternate personalities as separate people isn't the logical default here. We had a similar problem with Mistgod and Melian, where he refused to consider Melian a completely separate person from him, but most of the community insisted she was. To be fair, Melian was very separate, but there are undoubtedly other cases where the would-be "Tulpa" in question aren't quite as separate. I believe it's the would-be "Host's" right to decide what their own situation should be labeled as. Same logic as a soulbond being a tulpa or vice versa, or any other plurality systemmate/thoughtform term. A lot of the time, the only real difference is their preference. You can't go around calling multiples tulpas, because that's not the term they've chosen for themselves, even if by our standards here their systemmates meet every requirement to be considered a tulpa.

 

Anyways, look into therapist-induced Dissociative Identity Disorder. Some people with DID feel as if all of their multiple personalities are just them, only different parts of them or what have you. Sometimes a therapist's (or whoever is talking about the subject) preconceived idea that multiple personalities must be considered separate people can cause the person with DID to think that way. Which again, not saying that's a good or bad thing. But my point is, those people should be allowed to decide for themselves if their multiple personalities are just themselves or should be considered separate identities/separate people. If they aren't allowed that, there's no line between bipolar disorder and DID where we can clearly state one or the other. Even using blackouts is too blurry because people get drunk and do things they don't remember, too. So in that state they're a different individual? No, probably not. At some point between things like bipolar with major personality switches and DID with major personality and/OR identity switches, it becomes a case-by-case basis to decide just how many people that person should be considered.

 

Saying that a single person is incapable of having multiple personalities is just overstepping bounds too much. But for all I know you might consider therapist-induced DID a non-problem and believe everyone with DID should be informed of the possibility they're a plural system. I don't think that (not every individual is best off being a plural system; for sanity's sake, some people would highly prefer to return their split-personality state to that of a single identity), but you might, which is fine. But I don't believe in forcing plurality on people when they may prefer to consider themselves a single individual, sort of like Mistgod if Melian happened to be a little less tulpa-ish.

 

But I guess at some point you might consider this a matter of morality and/or philosophy, so if you still don't agree that's probably the end of the conversation.

[Abvieon]

It really depends on what you mean by alternate personalities. I suppose plurality might not always refer to separate people in the same head - it may be that there is more of a spectrum, with things such as median systems on one end and separate individuals in one brain at the other. It's just that I believe most cases of DID fall closer to "separate individuals in one brain" than they do "median systems". It's just that a system might not be a median system despite thinking that they are, and instead be more separate from one another than they realize. I believe that the "separate individuals" part of plurality is far more common than median systems or facets are. Most DID cases show an especially high level of separation, moreso than even tulpas.