Talk:Endogenic

Psychiatric Evidence About Endogenic

There is no psychiatric evidence to suggest that a person can become a system, without enduring psychological trauma. Dissasociation is a defence mechanism and you can't dissasociate without something to deffend from.

--Sillygirly97 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hiii, on the off chance you're genuinely willing to learn, this blog (I'm so sorry for linking a tumblr blog) may be helpful to you!! I get frustrations of being a traumagen sys stuck in spaces that say a lot of wack stuff, but it's better to try and educate yourself and not harass anyone (which, hopefully, is what you're doing!) best readings to you,

adding this here too while I look for wherever the hell my sources went....

--Chowder SYS (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That page doesn't work. Here's another set of pages that might work: Endogenic Research Debunking Sysmeds A carrd for Anti-Endos --Forestwalk (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Plurality isn't only about dissociation. You may be plural without have dissociative identities (alters), like cultural reasons, spiritual/religious reasons, etc. This is because plurality isn't about have DID/OSDD or others CDDs, but yes have two or more (headmates) in a body! — Reply to Sillygirly97.

--ItsSans (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, they perpetuate dangerous misinformation. Lots of endogenic beliefs are very harmful and stereotyped. The first major issue is that they perpetuate the idea that such a severe disorder can happen in the absence of trauma, which is scientifically impossible according to theory of structural disassociation. According to the current theory, the mind doesn’t start out as a whole; it starts off as different loose states of being that a child needs to survive. During normal development, these parts integrate into a singular self, but if interrupted by severe traumatic events, DDs can develop. There is no other reason why someone could experience being a system other than DDs. The „religious/cultural reasons” is a complete myth. I’m not trying to make invalidate anybody’s religion or faith but while yes, maybe they do experience symptoms of disassociation, it’s not possible for your brain to just not integrate if its development wasn’t severely disrupted. Endogenic systems also tend to perpetuate a lot of harmful misinformation and stigma, further demonising certain roles (persecutors being inherently bad, for example), spouting beliefs that are impossible (alter death, sys-hopping, etc.), and their continued presence on many platforms leads many people to believe that being a system is possible without trauma. Endogenic systems claiming to have or experience anything similar to a serious trauma disorder is also incredibly devaluing of all the trauma that DDs systems have gone through. Along with every single one of people with DDs being traumatised, systems are also incredibly stigmatised and demonised in media.

Almost all people who claim to be endogenic are: traumagenic systems in denial of their trauma, traumagenic systems who were mislead to believe that they are endogenic, people with other similarly presenting symptoms (like psychosis borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, etc.) misidentifying their symptoms, singlets with factitious disorders, singlets who are misidentifying normal experiences, such as acting different around different people or having mood swings or singlets who think that being a system is 'fun'.

P.S: „Severely” is subjective. Also linking a Tumblr blog with no proof of validity is an example of anetoctal evidence. Also don’t try to defend yourselves by saying „plurality isn’t well-studied”. That doesn’t excuse the fact that you still saying the most ridiculous misinformation.

--Sillygirly97 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

About non-trauma and non-dissociative plurality are in ICD-11, DSM-5, in articles, etc. But yes, i say that plurality exist without CDD is misinformation and you say that plurality is only about CDD isn't misinformation /joke.

And plurality isn't about have dissociation or CDD, is about has two or more headmates (can be entities, alters, souls, people, etc. Its depends of you culture, personal experiences and symptoms if you have).

"Almost all people who claim to be endogenic are" you use YOUR deductions to say that. "The „religious/cultural reasons” is a complete myth" is ????, why a culture cannot have the faith about have more than one entity in a body, for example? — and this is cited in ICD-11 too (about mediums specifically, not about my example).

"Also don’t try to defend yourselves by saying „plurality isn’t well-studied”" no, i will not make that, because have so much studies to refute what you say.

"first major issue is that they perpetuate the idea that such a severe disorder can happen in the absence of trauma" being a endogenic system ≠ claim have DID without trauma. "further demonising certain roles (persecutors being inherently bad, for example)" they literally dont do that. "spouting beliefs that are impossible (alter death, syshopping, etc.)" Are impossible for your experience. Sys-hop can occur in sidesys → sidesys (in the same body) and alter death can be a personal interpretation of fusion or dormancy, for example.

--ItsSans (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

hi!! im also a purely traumagenic system, but weve been in endo supportive spaces for a fair amount of time!

in my experience, many endogenic systems dont claim to have a CDD, and if they do, theyre either multigenic/mixed origins or have trauma but the trauma is not what formed the system. endogenic systems can have trauma! its just not what made them a system

i do also want to point out that things like BPD often do have very similar symptoms to plurality and are often diagnosed along with DID and OSDD! they are very often formed from trauma too, and can look very similar to what everyone thinks of when they hear OSDD-1a, and may or may not identify as median because of that. not to mention that BPD often has dissociative symptoms, just as PTSD and C-PTSD would, so they would experience something similar to DID/OSDD plurality and may ID as a system because of that. both of these articles support my claim

as for the endogenic misinformation, i have seen a lot of traumagenic anti-endo systems say the same things,,, (less about system-hopping, but that persecutors are inherently bad and similar). it really does depend on the space youre in, because a lot of endogenic systems have actually taught me how persecutors and similar arent bad people or to be demonized. i think most of the demonization has to do with singlets with minimal understanding of DID.. like,,, the movies that were made based off of "real stories" that have to do with alternative personalities. singlets are really the main source of demonization, from what ive seen. i think that sentiment that isnt from singlets who have seen all the horror stories come mostly from young, undereductated kids from both sides of the system community, anti endo or not. im not sure why, but i would guess it comes from them still learning about how people can do things that are bad, but still not be a bad person.

and from what ive seen, endogenic (without trauma or mixed origins) plurality does function differently from how a traumagenic system may function, but ultimately, we do have at least one shared experience, which would be sharing a brain with another self and/or person, which is why most people refer to it as plurality

i do also just want to say that i dont like the idea of DID/OSDD having to form by severe trauma, even if it is subjective, because the line of where it stops and starts is very blurry and it can also make younger systems not think that they can have a CDD because of the fact they dont feel like its "severe enough", which is what all of us are trying to avoid at the end of the day, systems being hurt and pushed into the wrong direction

and i do apologize that a lot of this is personal experience- but i feel a lot of this is personal experience anyways

--STCandyFactory (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Since we've reached the "but the science says" part of the conversation: the theory of structural dissociation makes absolutely no claims about non-traumagenic multiplicity. As in, it does not in any way prove or even claim that trauma is the only way for a system to form, it proposes a possible model that describes how or why trauma may cause a system. As an analogy, a paper on how rain works does offer one explanation of why the ground gets wet when it rains, but that doesn't mean that the ground can only be wet because of rain. And while yes, the current hypothesis is that trauma plays a big role in disordered systems forming, it is largely mentioned as a factor, neither the only one, nor a required one. Estimates of systems in academic research that have a clear trauma history is around 95%. So no, science does not in any way prove or even claim that endogenic plurality is impossible. If you do happen to have academic ressources that state otherwise in a way that is not just a rage claim against some other author (because yes those get published too apparently), I would be very happy to look at them, and I mean that genuinely. -LogLot

I'll provide the same link to the same blog as before, incredibly confused by "with no proof of validity is an example of anetoctal evidence." since its LITTERED with actual resources and sources...?? Anyways, | here's the website they made It's also made by a CDD system. I'm also a CDD system, "purely traumagenic", and I've never really known peace in a day of my life. I also study dissociative disorders exclusively so i can genuinely understand where you're coming from because this stuff can be incredibly confusing to an outsider. If you are comfortable contacting me on discord (I'm @wexler.mcgill) so we can discuss this properly in a more private area, I would be grateful.

--Chowder SYS (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, there isn't much research on the topic! But remember, when reality doesn't match science, you don't change reality, you change the science. Laxystem (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In respose to the respone of user STCandyFactory, the studies you've linked prove that dissociative identity disorder commonly co-occurs with borderline personality disorder and vice versa, and (b) individuals who meet criteria for both disorders have more comorbidity and trauma than individuals who meet criteria for only 1 disorder (I) and 59% of the borderline patients met criteria for a dissociative disorder compared with 22% of the non-borderline patients (II). It's worth noting that, CDD ≠ dissasociation. Dissasociation is a mental process of disconnecting from one's thoughts, feelings, memories or sense of identity. It doesn't have to come with plurality but it is required to be plural.

Now how would you be able to illustrate how would brain without severe disruption during early phase of neurological development wouldn't integrate and develop a fragmented sense of oneself?

--Sillygirly97 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"development wouldn't integrate and develop a fragmented sense of oneself?" Again: Plurality isn't only about dissociative identities. "The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder should not be assigned in these cases." — ICD-11. You don't need have a fragmented identity caused by dissociative barriers to be plural. Again again, plurality is about consider yourself how two or more, is nothing do ONLY with fragmented identity (that occurs in structural dissociation).

Plus, the word "plurality" developed main in non-CDD context, and have articles about "plural self" without being in CDD context (the word "plurality" i rarely see in this stuff in reality). Plurality ISN'T only about fragment identity or any dissociative stuff.

But you probably say that because you cannot desconect with the word plural being a fragmented identity, so i will explain without use the word "plural". Being/consider more than one is present in many cultures, therapies, etc. Like IFS, you consider yourself more than one (subpersonalities), like mediums, you consider yourself more than one (entities), etc. Now if you say that many cultures, peoples, and others cannot consider themselves "more than one" because you THINK that consider "more than one" is dissociative exclusive thing, i cannot do nothing too.

If you want you can add me in the Discord: itssans. (With the .)

--ItsSans (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, i am talking about the comorbidity between DID and BPD because it is something to take into consideration when making claims about whether an endogenic system is just mistaking their experiences as BPD or other disorders which have dissociation as a symptom of that disorder

DID-Research does list BPD as part of "secondary dissociation", which OSDD is also listed under as well as C-PTSD. BPD also has similar identity fragmentation to what youre talking about, which would be a requirement to be plural from your idea of plurality. and while dissociation does not mean CDD, this just proves that having a CDD is not the only way to be a system

as for trying to give you examples of how an endogenic system may form, this whole site contains ways and reasons for their formation. you may argue that this isnt a proper resource, but you arent going to find medical studies on endogenic plurality because since its not usually disordered, medical professionals would rather spend time researching how DID and dissociation affect disordered people. and because of this, the vast majority of resources on endogenic nondisordered plurality will be from those who are endogenic or non-medical professionals. i believe people here have given you resources from people within the community to help, which is pretty much the best you are going to get.

it takes nothing to believe someones experience and support them throughout their journey if they do end up figuring out they are indeed a traumagenic disordered system. and even pushing the fact that endogenic plurality is impossible can even be harmful to young traumagenic systems! if they experience plurality, and find out that theres a word for what theyre experiencing, and dont remember their trauma or feel that it was "not enough" to be traumagenic, and see a lot of systems say nontraumagenic plurality doesnt exist, a lot of the time they arent going to think "it mustve been worse then" (or if they do, this makes them try to dig to feel valid for their experience) and are most likely going to brush off their experiences as normal, when its not. if they arent ready to accept their trauma, digging is dangerous and not beneficial, and if they dont identify as a system they are just keeping resources away from themself. sometimes just identifying as an endogenic system for a traumagenic one is a big step to accepting trauma

--STCandyFactory (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)