just because we haven’t worked out everything about the brain doesn’t mean that we know nothing. also @ the other anon, i’m aware of the ableism in the psychiatric field, but that doesn’t make all psychiatry completely incorrect. also note that modern psychology is based on decades of research and studies. while we have hundreds of books and reports on the topic, what do you have? a couple of teenagers on the internet claiming to know better than people who have spent years studying?

I’m 30, anon. And I’ve been consciously multiple for half my lifetime. Most of the people in the multiplicity communities I’ve been a part of…

i’m speaking as someone currently studying psychology at university. the literal definition of a system is someone whose personality didn’t integrate. please actually look this up, this is a known fact. if your personality is integrated you’re not multiple. if you’re going to claim to be multiple people with an integrated personality, can you at least not steal our terms.

*facepalm* Wow, anon, the point and you miss again! 1) obviously a psychology textbook would define mlultiplicty through the lens of disorder. They’re not going…

not believing me about being diagnosed just because you disagree with me is childish. also there’s literally no-non DID/OSDD-1 basis for natural multiples to exist unless they’re not actually dissociative, and therefore not a system. imitative DID is where someone with an unstable personality (usually someone with BPD believes their facets are alters because they feel like different people.) takes on the social role of someone with DID and claims to be multiple, despite being a singlet.

no-non DID/OSDD-1 basis for natural multiples  Whoops, you missed the point again, anon! Natural multiples exist, get this, outside of the psychiatric purview.  Natural multiples…