Jump to content

Models for Switching: Transfer and Retraction


Indigo Blue
 Share

Recommended Posts

My switching research and thinking has led me to the idea that there are two hypothetical models for how switching works, the two of which, I think, encompass all/most methods for switching.

 

Transfer Model: A switch is accomplished via the host’s ownership over the consciousness being transferred to the tulpa.

 

This model, I think, would be mostly led by the tulpa/initiated by the tulpa’s actions. If not, some other third party. At the very least, the transfer model does not require the host to dissociate to switch.

 

Here are some examples of the transfer model:

- A tulpa uses up so much mental resources that it naturally causes a switch

- A tulpa merely taking over the front causes a switch

- A tulpa fronts for so long that they naturally induce a switch

- The tulpa and host use symbolism to transfer ownership

- Something triggers the tulpa to take over and causes a switch

- A tulpa and host merge together, and splitting causes a switch

 

This model I think would include most DID/OSDD switches: the alter takes over, for whatever reason, and switches. Control has been transferred.

 

Retraction Model: In contrast, this model relies on the host’s actions: the host has to first shrink, dissociate, disconnect, etc. for the switch to be successful, rather than just the tulpa taking control. 

 

Here are some examples of the retraction model:

- The host meditates until they drift out, then the tulpa takes over

- The host ignores sensory information until they switch out

- The host uses symbolism to dissociate from the body to switch out. 

- The host “bails” from the front due to stress

 

The host retracts their control from the consciousness, and a switch is achieved.

 

I have created illustrations of each of these methods here. Please take the time to look at those.

 

If these two models are something to go by, I can say that the transfer model has not worked for us so far, we may need to focus on the retraction model to succeed in switching. 

 

In summary, depending on the system and the situation, switching can be caused either be ownership over the consciousness being transferred to the tulpa, or by the host retracting their own control and leaving only the tulpa's.

 

Thoughts? Think there might be another model other than these two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sound very similar. I wanted to say we used model one, but disociation is definitely part of it (it can happen very quickly), but it hardly matters, so I want to say two, if I can be both, then they're mostly the same model eh?

 

It's like if I fall asleep through deep meditation and dissociation, or I just fall asleep whenever, the fact remains that I fell asleep. Sometimes it can feel like my head hits the pillow and I'm out, sometimes I need a little relaxation meditation and it can take a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is mainly a matter of what is initiating the switch, either a transfer in control or a retraction of control. Transferring control involves dissociation, but dissociation may not be be what initiated the switch, hence it's not the retraction model. 

 

It's sort of a matter of, what's the order things are happening: the tulpa switching in causing the host to switch out, or the host switching out causing the tulpa to fully switch in? The order indicates which model the switch may be following. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For us, as far as the body and mind are concerned, it seems like the switch happens primarily after the next fronter switches in. That's when the switch "clicks" and the brain sort of switches over to thinking like them, instinctively and all that. Even after the previous fronter is dissociated out of the body (in our symbolism), if we're interrupted or something it's possible for the switcher-in to associate really quickly, but it's easier for the one switching out to snap back in.

 

That said, I'm not really confident about just choosing either of these "models"... So I said what I could think to

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that would follow transfer, as would Bear's experiences, from my understanding of his switching. For us, merely switching in has not led to a switch out on the host's end, so we don't seem to be successful with transfer and we may find more success in retraction. If you haven't looked at the images, I think they help explain the concept better than just words.

 

Transfer: The tulpa takes the host's connection to consciousness and it becomes their own, causing a switch.

Retraction: The host removes their connection and leaves only the tulpa's, causing a switch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the images, but I wasn't able to easily associate them with speakable words of advice, if that makes sense?

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Reilyn-Alley

Transfer Model: A switch is accomplished via the host’s ownership over the consciousness being transferred to the tulpa.

 

This model, I think, would be mostly led by the tulpa/initiated by the tulpa’s actions. If not, some other third party. At the very least, the transfer model does not require the host to dissociate to switch.

 

Here are some examples of the transfer model:

- A tulpa uses up so much mental resources that it naturally causes a switch

- A tulpa merely taking over the front causes a switch

- A tulpa fronts for so long that they naturally induce a switch

- The tulpa and host use symbolism to transfer ownership

- Something triggers the tulpa to take over and causes a switch

- A tulpa and host merge together, and splitting causes a switch

 

This model I think would include most DID/OSDD switches: the alter takes over, for whatever reason, and switches. Control has been transferred.

 

Retraction Model: In contrast, this model relies on the host’s actions: the host has to first shrink, dissociate, disconnect, etc. for the switch to be successful, rather than just the tulpa taking control. 

 

Here are some examples of the retraction model:

- The host meditates until they drift out, then the tulpa takes over

- The host ignores sensory information until they switch out

- The host uses symbolism to dissociate from the body to switch out. 

- The host “bails” from the front due to stress

 

The host retracts their control from the consciousness, and a switch is achieved.

 

 

I think your two models are describing the same things and you aren't realizing it. You mention, for example, in the retraction model that the host dissociates and shrinks away while an alter can take over and mention that you think DID/OSDD is part of the transfer model. It's called "Dissociative Identity Disorder". Dissociating is in the name. The person with it either intentionally or unintentionally disassociates away from front. Kind of holding the car keys out and seeing if anyone wants to take them or they have them snatched our of their hand and tossed back into a passenger seat or in the worst cases, kicked out of the car for awhile entirely while an alter goes joy riding without them.

 

It's possible that it's merely a "tipping point" sort of thing, as in, fronter has X influence in Y situation and if another headmate's X and Y raise above that, a switch will happen. From what I've read of multiple accounts, it doesn't really matter if the fronter wants it to happen or not. If there are fears, trust issues, disbelief and mental walls or whatever, those give the fronter more influence and they have to figure out a way to separate themselves further intentionally so they decrease their resistance or the incoming headmate needs to figure out how to work extra hard to overcome it. Maybe it's something like that? It's merely X*Y of fronter vs X*Y of another headmate. Doesn't matter if the fronter decreases their X via meditation, or their Y by being triggered, etc. Either will work, lowering X or Y, because both matter. Meanwhile, the headmate needs to increase their X and Y likewise. If something triggers the fronter to want out and/or something happens that triggers a headmate to want in, as long as fronter's X*Y becomes less than the headmates X*Y, a switch happens.

 

Using that idea, I'd assume that certain people, due to what's happened in their lives, current mental state, whatever, have different starting values for X. Maybe someone with DID has had the kind of trauma that pushed the brain to never properly merge those personalities into one and created alters, permanently pushing their X value much much lower than most ever get. The brain learned it was an effective coping mechanism and kept using it, ignoring any drawbacks. Perhaps through meditation and therapy, they can raise their X a little. Give them a little armor or whatever to it. Meanwhile, other alters have their own X and depending on what they are like, that might naturally be pretty high. High enough that they can end up switching in and becoming the defacto host or primary fronter. I assume in a system there that kinda thing isn't wanted, maybe they can coordinate to try and keep their X down lower (unless triggered or something), than who they agree should be in front. It is considered somewhat normal for people with DID to have different headmates become the primary influencer and host, over the years. It can be absolutely terrible when communication is poor and that new primary influencer has little or no memory of what's been happening up to that point then is suddenly expected to run the system functionally in a body which may seem alien to them.

 

Like some kind of switching armor. I'm pretty sure that's what's going on with us. Lance is like "yeah, I wanna learn to switch out so you can enjoy front alone for awhile", while he is basically wearing heavy knight's armor and anchored into place and clinging to a wall or something. Him reaching one hand out from all that setup and saying "ok, I'm leaving now" is kind of a joke. ;P

 

Anyway, in singlets, PTSD has been observed to create an almost switching like state. Somewhere between that and just the singlet being paralyzed with anxiety or triggering an out of control fight or flight response. In someone who has already had their brain learn to switch/split/disassociate, as a method of coping or adapting, it seems like it is more prone to use that instead. Like a stressful situation causes a trigger (Y) which simultaneously overwhelms the person with fear, rage, anything and greatly disturbs their control/influence (X). It varies greatly dependent upon the person, I suppose. I'd assume with singlets who reinforce the concept of switching and headmates being real and possible, it plants the seed of possibility. I assume there have been those on .info with tulpas who have switched, and have found themselves triggered too as they have, through studious effort and reinforcement of belief, taught their brain to do in a more (hopefully) controlled and cooperitive way, what trauma can force upon someone with DID or to a lesser degree, someone with OSDD.

 

If I can use a cheezy anime reference, maybe people's X values are like power levels from dragonball z. Sorta set randomly at birth, within a certain average range for people, but things can cause that to fluctuate. Training, discipline, taking a moment to ground and affirm their control is like "powering up" or whatever else can raise it for a time, while trauma and damage or intentionally lowering their walls and "powering down" can lower it.

 

I hope I didn't mix things up too much and said this all clearly. My idea kinda evolved and came to life as I was typing all that, so I hope none of it contradicts itself. But yeah, I think instead of transfer or reaction, it's a kinda X*Y thing of fronter vs X*Y thing of headmate who is next closest to the front. And yes, people with DID can, with practice, tell which alters are "closest to front". Here's one example

(and I recommend the video for anyone here to watch, as well as all of theirs. I haven't heard them comment on tulpamancy directly but they sure have a strong opinion of anyone who "wants to give themselves DID", so if that's what she is talking about, it's educational too to understand things from the DID side. Broaden yo mind!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think you're not really getting it. We're not saying that transfer doesn't create dissociation. We're talking about what causes the switch, either someone shrinking away into the mind first or someone taking over first, which is likely the case for DID/OSDD systems. The fronter in those systems doesn't have to focus on meditation or whatever, the switch is induced by the mere act of someone taking over.

 

They are the same end result when successful, one is in control while the other is dissociated. Just two different ways of reaching that goal depending on the actions taken in the system.

 

Also, we aren't implying transfer vs retraction varies system by system, rather it probably varies switch by switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Reilyn-Alley

And I'm saying it seems more likely that it is a combination of both at the same time. In those systems, people can become front-stuck too. They might want out but not be able to achieve it. Is that because no one else wants in strongly enough? Or because they, by reaction or impulse, are clinging too hard to the front? Someone shoved out of the car while it drives off isn't getting back in the drivers seat no matter how badly they want it, till the car comes back around and picks them up again anyway. Empowered systems learn not to shove each other out of the car and just have a big double-decker bus for a "car" or something.

 

EDIT: But to finish my thought with the X and Y thing, I'd just assume that with switching systems, the fronter has learned how to manipulate it or had their X value lowered involuntarily, combined with headmates that have learned to manipulate theirs too or had theirs raised involuntarily. Wanting a switch to happen probably tweaks the Y a bit (situation: want it to happen), but even if they don't want it to happen, if they get triggered it involuntarily raises that Y and doesn't matter what they want. Someone who doesn't have traumatic or associated triggers doesn't have that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...