#mclean hospital

[sophieinwonderland]

I find myself thinking again on the r/systemscringe post announcing the targeting of public figures. Some of the points I've already responded to. Others are vague enough to not bother with. They think I'm spreading "misinformation" for providing peer-reviewed academic sources that support endogenic plurality. I think they're spreading misinformation for trying to disprove RAMCOA by relying on an ableist Satanist apologist group that doesn't believe dissociative identity disorder is real and wants to throw trauma survivors under the bus in their effort to debunk the Satanic Panic.

(Nothing against Satanism overall. I just don't think Doug Mesner should be treated as a reliable source on psychology.)

It's subjective.

There's little sense in arguing their spin of the facts, as absurd as it may be.

But then, other things aren't subjective. They aren't half-truths. They're just made-up lies.

Like this...

promoted the review-bombing of McLean Hospital

This is something I'm pretty confident never happened.

I looked through some of my old posts about it just to see if I might have reblogged someone calling to review bomb them and couldn't.

I also checked this petition I posted and found nothing about encouraging people to leave bad reviews here:

I suppose it's not impossible that I reblogged something that slipped through the cracks and I forgot about. I mean, this was drama from a year ago they decided to resurrect and if they scoured my blog for reasons to justify attacking me and putting me on their hit list, maybe they found something I forgot.

But I REALLY don't think so.

I don't think I would have pushed for anything like that at the time because, by the time I found about and responded to the harmful video, McLean had already taken steps to remove it from their official Youtube. I had to watch it through a mirror. In my mind, that was admittance that they messed up.

It seems to me that u/Goat_Alter and the other mods of the hate subreddit just decided to accuse anyone who criticized the video and wanted it removed of review bombing. Something which is obviously absurd.

Which makes me wonder then about the other people they accused.

Like I've said before, I've never watched DissociaDID, but I figured maybe other people in the system community did. Does anyone know if DissociaDID ever actually encouraged people to leave false reviews about McLean Hospital because of the video, or are the r/systemscringe mods lying about them too?

[syscurse]

I watched Dr. Robinson's lecture on social media & self diagnosed DID (didn't watch the Q&A part though). It was a surprisingly decent lecture for the complex subject it's tackling! I took notes throughout the entire video if anyone is interested & doesn't want to watch the hour long video (but I recommend you do so you can form your own thoughts on it).

Here's a link to the video.

My notes are under the cut. If you want, you can read a short version here.

Important to keep in mind: Dr. Robinson says that the TikToks he shares in the lecture are for illustrative purposes. He knows nothing about the people behind them, and he cannot verify who does or does not have DID. Further in the video he says that harassing or fakeclaiming people who say they have DID, regardless if they actually have it, does extreme harm. Despite that, it still feels inappropriate that they used these TikToks without permission, and without censoring.

The introduction starts off with describing how the DID patients in their clinic look nothing like the sensationalized portrayal of DID in media. People with DID experience distress & confusion towards their symptoms, which they are reluctant or ashamed to report. Many of their patients report feeling distraught/confused by online content where people promote DID symptoms openly in a fun, sensationalized way. For illustrative purposes, Dr. Robinson shows a TikTok of a person asking their partner to guess which alter is fronting. It's a bunch of clips cut together of them going "guess who's fronting!" in a different voice and their partner gets it correct every time, like a little game.

He explains how recently, many people are coming into the clinic self-diagnosing as DID. They do not have a trauma history and their parts are character-like. The symptoms they present are not typical to DID.

He shows a TikTok of someone changing outfits to music, with the caption asking to guess which system member is wearing what. Robinson says that these overt changes in wardrobe are not characteristic of DID. Nearly all patients with DID are reluctant to discuss their symptoms and conceal it. So this begs these questions: Do online influencers genuinely have DID? If not, what are they experiencing? And what role does social media play in self-diagnosis & the perception of DID?

DID is considered the most severe/complex trauma-related dissociative disorder. It involves symptoms of:

Depersonalization Derealization Amnesia Identity Confusion Identity Alteration At times, pwDID report experiencing someone in their mind who is "not me." At times, it feels like someone else is "driving" the body with a distinct set of thoughts & behaviors. Shifts are subtle or completely hidden. Dr. Robinson emphasizes that they rarely see obvious signs of switching or changes like what was depicted in the video earlier.

What's interesting to me is that he describes amnesia in DID as only being trauma-related… From what I understand, however, amnesia in DID can apply to everyday life as well.

He states that identity alteration (alters, switching) is the most sensationalized symptom of DID. Agreed. DID is not an alters disorder. "DID is really about the 'not me' experience." It is about wanting to get through everyday life without having to re-experience overwhelming trauma info.

He brings up media portrayals of DID like Split & the United States of Tara which have sensationalized the alters aspect of DID. This media has also perpetuated other myths such as the idea that pwDID are dangerous or extraordinary.

He talks about the development of DID. It's a posttraumatic disorder. Requires chronic, severe trauma during early development. In the absence of nurturing & soothing adults, the child internalizes aspects of their environment. The process of personality development is fragmented & those personality parts are anthropomorphized.

DID is really a disorder of hiddenness, he says. That's why it's surprising to see so many people online coming out and celebrating the diagnosis.

He uses a TikTok video of someone saying they got diagnosed with DID & that they're going to get a cake to celebrate. They literally ask the bakery person to write the phrase "happy DID diagnosis" on it. Omg I would not have the balls to do that… Tbh I don't vibe with thinking it's bad to feel happy/relieved about your diagnosis. I think more people should feel happy about it, because in the past it was so common to feel like a diagnosis was more like a death sentence. Robinson says that patients usually feel more fear after getting diagnosed, but that's not a good thing in my opinion.

The problem here shouldn't be that someone is happy/relieved they got an answer to their questions & a label for their pain. The problem here should be the sensationalization. It should be about how they boosted the entertainment value of it for profit.

He describes the history of DID being delegitimized. Freud decided it was false memories, then there was false memory syndrome. Etc. Etc. In the most recent decades, there has been so much more research & support for DID as a legitimate, trauma-based disorder. But many people still don't believe it and false memory controversy is still perpetuated. Robinson says that the recent trend of inaccurate social media representations is further delegitimizing DID.

At the heart of DID controversy there are two models for it: 

Trauma model: DID is trauma-related and trauma memories are true

Fantasy model: DID is unrelated to trauma, resulted from fantasy-proneness or suggestibility, influenced by social media or other factors, and trauma memories are exaggerated or simply not true

He discusses the neuroscience behind it! Researchers are finding that DID has a unique biological imprint, further supporting its legitimacy as a real, trauma-based disorder.

Robinson says that people with DID have always been online & had online communities. Yet, specifically in facebook, youtube, instagram, TikTok, and twitter we see an issue. They are a bit different because (on the monthly) the active users are up in the billions. They are also algorithm-based, so liking content on DID will result in your feed giving you more DID content. The pandemic has also further driven people to social media, too.

TikTok DID hashtags get billions of views.. Robinson says these views have grown by 200-400 MILLION over the past 4 months.

PROS of discussing DID on the internet:

Evidence & info on DID is becoming widely & easily available. More resources for people. This has created safe spaces online for people who are trauma survivors, researchers, & clinicians. With so much good information, many of the false representations & misinfo can be countered. This means that many people can self-diagnose accurately! There's been a general destigmatization of DID online. The dominant narrative is no longer skeptical.

CONS of discussing DID on the internet:

There is also more inaccurate information. Most of the time the representation of DID is wrong. This leads to inaccurate self-diagnosing. People (especially young people) may attach clinical labels to normal experiences. They may elaborate or manifest DID-like symptoms instead of acknowledging they have a different problem. COVID has made people more vulnerable to this. There is also significant online harassment & fakeclaiming towards DID influencers.

FAKECLAIMING HARMS EVERYONE WITH AND WITHOUT DID. Robinson says that fearing you may be faking is one of the most common symptoms of DID. Regardless if someone genuinely has DID or not, calling them fake will harm both them and all other people with DID.

Now, I find it a bit questionable that they are using uncensored TikToks in this lecture despite acknowledging that these people face elevated fakeclaiming & harassment... I get that it's for educational purposes but it feels especially inappropriate when acknowledging this.

Social media has dynamics that reinforce these uncharacteristic DID representations. It rewards people who create attention-grabbing content for likes & follows, regardless if the content is true. That's why you can't know if someone is faking just because of their uncharacteristic portrayal, because it's possible that social media is influencing them to express themselves in different ways. But, it's also possible that these dynamics are still contributing to an increase of inaccurate self-diagnosis.

He brings up someone called the ace system (?) who has generated millions of views. I have NO IDEA how to describe the TikTok he just played. It was like…snippets of different system members talking about their day? They talked about panic attacks and stuff. They also switched so much in just one day. Seems exhausting.

Robinson does say "it's possible that some social media influencers like the ace system(?) may be malingering or have factitious disorders" which I personally don't see as him doubting that person in particular. He's not saying THIS PERSON IS MALINGERING, he's just saying some people might be malingering but we really wouldn't know as onlookers.

Describing what malingering & factitious disorders are now.

Malingering: intentional reporting of symptoms for some external gain like money

Factitious: intentional reporting of symptoms, but not just for som external gain

For illustration of external gain (which isn't inherently malingering), he's showing the ace system's (?) merchandise website. Then a cameo account where you can book a personalized video from the system. Another TikTok system he showed earlier makes a reappearance, this time to show that they are selling hats that their system made.

Imitative DID is for people who do not actually have DID but genuinely believe that they do. They may benefit from psychological or social gain, which makes social media platforms the ideal platform for them to thrive. Claiming they have DID might provide them a sense of connection/community. They may struggle with their identity such as who they are in the world, what community they belong in, who they'll be in the future, etc. Robinson says that "the DID narrative helps these people explain frequent confusion about who they really are."

Dr. Robinson says that endogenic systems (which he also just calls plurality/multiplicity) can sometimes be an example of Imitated DID. He mentions Astraeasweb from the 90s claiming nonpathological multiplicity/plurality as an identity. He plays a new TikTok of someone telling people to look up The Plural Association and "welcome to the plural community" and tips on how to start system communication.

He says that people with DID don't choose this or wish for this. The symptoms are developed out of need for survival.

Endogenic plurality refers to any development of plurality that does not have a trauma origin. They promote their plurality as a healthy way of their mind working; an identity. Some of them don't identify as having DID, but Dr. Robinson says that many do (I personally think it's the opposite but *shrugs* he might be lumping all cases of imitative DID in there).

He says that more research needs to be done to see if endogenics are genuine DID, imitated DID, or something else entirely.

Dramatized, obvious switching is actually very rare in DID. Yet, it's very common in online videos. He shows a TikTok of someone sitting in a car who is "switching." They stare into space, close their eyes slowly, drop their head down for a while, then they lift their head up and smile. He shows another TikTok of someone who also drops their head down (it says "no one in the body"?) and after a long time, they lift their head up, start swearing(????), and then cheekily take their name tag off while staring at the camera.

Robinson says that in both of these examples we see an uncharacteristic awareness of the process of dissociation, because these individuals could actually plan for and videotape what was going to happen. He says the switches in genuine DID are subtle and often unnoticed by outside observers.

In imitative DID there is also an emphasis on elaborated parts. They lack the confusion & distress/conflict with these parts which is characteristic of DID. He shows a TikTok of someone showing Picrews of their parts. Then he shows another TikTok with someone playing guess-who trying to figure out who is fronting. So literally playing a game. "A game-like way of presenting symptoms that would be very distressing in genuine DID," Robinson says about that video.

There was a recent case study that interviewed people who were not given the diagnosis of DID and found that they were angry + relying on the diagnosis for connection & attention.

Once again, he says it's difficult to distinguish whether social media influencers are genuine, malingered, imitative, or something else. It's not something even professionals can distinguish as onlookers. We don't know anything about the people in the video examples except for what they put out online.

To conclude the lecture, Dr. Robinson says that accurate online information & professional education is MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER given the increase of DID awareness. Wrong info & poor representations delegitimizes DID and causes harm. We don't want it to undermine all of the progress in research in the recent years.

[poisoneeveelution]

The McLean Hospital video about DID...

Was wildly misinformed and harmful. And no I didn't watch the entire thing because I don't feel like self harming today. I did watch the part where they criticised people celebrating getting a diagnosis and I really want to say to anyone out there who celebrated any diagnosis: congratulations! You found out what was going on with you and that is something to be celebrated! It can be a long and scary road to find out what is wrong with you, why you aren't like the "normal" people.

I don't think any of us are celebrating having been traumatised. We're celebrating because someone looked at us and told us we're not insane. Our experiences are real and normal and valid. There is help for us and there is a community out there for us.

I would urge you not to watch the video, but if you do, please open in a private browser so they don't receive tracked views. Comments are turned off so you can't try to reason with them either. People seem to only be talking about this on twitter so I thought I'd bring it up here too.

Stay safe, take care of one another, reach out if you need support.

[unwelcome-ozian]

Is/was McLean hospital involved in MKUltra?

Yes. McLean is associated with Harvard and involved with MKULTRA.

Oz

[system-of-a-feather]

TBH Matthew Robinnson I think is right and on the right track, but I also think he has a bit of a closed minded and kinda "boomer"ish view on how DID should look. I do think researching with his concept in mind is important and I REALLY do think we do need to research social media and DID relationships because I think it is ABSOLUTELY important to bring up and I am absolutely glad someone is bring it up and onto the desks of researchers so I do think the conference was a large net positive

That said, it's hardly perfect and I have a lot of complaints but heres the thing, I don't think I've ever been to a research seminar / conference where I DIDNT have complaints. The nature of these things aren't meant to be 100% informational and "this is fact" it is to share current thoughts, concepts, ideas, and directions with people in a similar field to try to start a conversation on certain issues and get other researchers thinking about similar issues.

These sorts of videos do not exist primarily for a general audience but other researchers and academics - professionals and experts - to address a current issue that is being faced. Researchers and academics are LARGELY argumentative (in an actual debate manner) and actively challenge one another and it is very very very rare that these sorts of seminars and conferences go unchallenged because doing so is - at least in my experience in research fields - against the very nature of those in the field of research.

If it worries you that this is going to UPHEAVAL the WHOLE professional world, don't. For each professional researcher that states one view there will be another that goes "um actually I disagree". He is one professional and honestly his take isn't wrong, his attitude and view (imo) is just that he is a bit dated and a little closed minded.

Typically I don't really care to commentate on discourse that is popular in the communities cause usually theyre honestly stupid and dumb af, but considering this was an academic seminar causing it, I felt a lot more interested and responsible of communicating my thoughts on it as someone who does regularly sit in research communities and centers and in literally a month will be a paid professional in the field of research under a research university.

Just remember when looking at this stuff that those videos are again, NOT MEANT TO BE FACT AND END ALL. They are discussion starters. They're flags being raised for "I think this is something we need to look into". His claims are not " this is the absolute truth " - it is "this is what I see and notice and think and it has me curious / concerned on this topic and I think others should also be curious / concerned and this is something worth researching."

Just take a breath.

It will be OK.

The world has not ended because someone questioned it.

I understand being dysregulated / upset or anything by it, cause fair and I understand, but its just a conversation topic that is HONESTLY very needed.

If you agree with the statement "we should get more research on how social media interacts with DID" then what he is doing is beneficial as a net whole.

You don't have to agree with everything he said to agree with the core function and purpose of the seminar which was to raise interest in the topic of social media and DID within other professional researchers.

He might not be the best speaker, but it served its purpose for starting a conversation.

The only thing this will result in is an increase of interest in researching DID in the modern era. Nothing more, nothing less.

[kipandkandicore]

a response to this post since they have reblogs turned off and our thoughts are too much for a comment. to the author of that post, please let us know if this response oversteps your boundaries, and we’ll delete it.

overall, we absolutely agree with you. our thoughts on matthew a. robinson’s presentation are complex, but we don’t believe his license should be taken away.

first of all, yes, using people’s social media content without their consent is illegal. it doesn’t matter whether or not they posted it publicly, and everyone whose content was used without their consent could file a dmca claim because of this. it’s great the video was taken down, because posting tiktoks of mentally ill people without their knowledge or consent has caused these people to be fake claimed and harassed. it was weird to us that robinson acknowledged that posting about did online opens people up to harassment, without recognizing that he was opening these people up to harassment by including their videos in his presentation.

we agreed with many of robinson’s statements regarding the nature of did - he didn’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know about how the disorder functions. however, it alarmed us that he painted the lives of those with dissociative disorders in such a bleak, hopeless, and negative light. it often can be this way for folks with did, but from his phrasing, he seemed to claim that patients with did will never be able to recover, find happiness, have autonomy, or learn to enjoy their lives. he hammered in the idea that all of his patients with did are only ever suffering with shame, confusion, fear, and anxiety.

it’s strange that he included videos of people to reinforce his idea that self-diagnosis through social media is a problem, yet every single person whose content was included has received diagnoses by professionals. the a system, pixieeelocks, and pinksugarfairies all have been open about their diagnoses and their experiences with the medical institution. it’s also strange that he failed to recognize that people choose what to post on social media. a system may deal with trauma responses, heavy dissociation and amnesia, flashbacks, shame, anxiety, panic attacks, and all sorts of horrible symptoms, but that doesn’t mean they’re obligated to share those experiences online.

he included statistics in his presentation on how many people are posting and viewing content about did online to reinforce his claim that self-diagnosis of did online is a problem. we don’t think that simply viewing content should be an indicator that someone is trying to self-diagnose, or that they’re claiming to be a system at all. and if the statistics put out by the national institute of health are to be believed, did affects a startlingly large number of the global population (~1.5%). are these people not allowed to express themselves creatively? are they not allowed to be publicly open about their disorder and how it affects them?

overall, we believe robinson (unknowingly or not) perpetuated ableist, harmful stereotypes about dissociative disorders and those who suffer with them. it was obvious from the video that he views those with did as patients rather than people.

still, we don’t believe this is grounds for the removal of his license. maybe he is in need of some sensitivity training, and maybe he needs to be in touch with some systems outside of therapy, or who are further along in their recovery process than his patients. the fact is, it is quite possible for systems to live happy, healthy lives. recovery is possible!! and claiming otherwise only causes harm to those in desperate need of help.

we have even more thoughts on this, but we’ll wrap it up here. we watched the video in full, and are happy to discuss it further with anyone who wishes. for those who are curious, here is a link to the presentation, which has since been removed from youtube. trigger warnings for fake claiming (under the guise of “imitated did”), ableism, and generalizing about the lives of individuals with dissociative disorders.

please stay safe and try to take care of yourselves.

[thestarseersystem]

THIS VIDEO!!!

This video right here is truly my thoughts and feelings regarding the McLean video. Like I agree with what's said here 100%!!!

It depresses me that people are finding it in their heart to agree with the presenter's shit views on how DID patients are supposed to present their disorder. Just because one person is miserable with their life, doesn't mean everyone with that disorder is miserable.

You can't armchair undiagnose someone by what they post online. A lot of people don't post dark and dreary stuff because it is vulnerable and personal and the presenter did cherry pick the more "fun" videos.

I really do think his disclaimers are used to save face and not his actual beliefs, and that is damaging, due to what he's putting out at those who can treat those with DID.

If your goal is NOT to help your patients lead a happy and more manageable life, then you should not be treating patients.

I've also watched the responses from Pixielocks and Pink Sugar Fairies and it SHOWS that this presenter did not do bare minimum research. He mishandled and betrayed the people he showed in the video. It is not fair to psychoanalyze people that you have not been given permission to treat, especially when he knows jack shit about their personal life stories.

Respect systems no matter if they're a content creator or not. They should not have to be restricted in their career just because you think we're too disabled to do it.

Fuck McLean hospital, I would not trust them or their psych department with a ten foot poll. This sort of behavior is unprofessional at best, they need to clean up their fucking act and apologize. And if they've done so already, good. If they haven't, get it to-fucking-gether.

[screaming-heart]

okay, so if yall don't know, recently(ish? idfk) there was a video of a clinician using tiktoks from did creators as examples of "imitated" did. i hate that, and i think we all hate that, but i want to talk about a specific thing he was saying.

from what i understood, this guy said that those with DID always present with shame, embarrassment, and discomfort about their condition, and are always or almost always in a crisis state. now, for obvious reasons i think thats bullshit, but i want to mention one specific thing.

those in crisis do not always appear to be in crisis.

i am someone who is not terribly functional. on a normal day, things such as having to make myself food, having to interact with people, or being interrupted doing something are likely to make me upset and angry. the thing is that i was not allowed to show that growing up. when i was in crisis, i had to learn how to hide it and how to keep going on with my day like nothing had happened.

that is basically what did is. from what i understand, did exists to keep the person functional while horrible things are happening to them. it keeps the person functional while in crisis. so the idea that did systems must always be visibly in distress or else they are faking seems to be like utter bullshit.

and also for using the videos of content creators who did not consent to that usage with no regard for their privacy i hope this guy is as embarrassed and shameful as he thinks we need to be.

[alienated-alienist]

I’m seeing a lot of discourse about that McLean Hospital DID seminar, but no one is talking about how… bad it was. It was just poorly done. A lot of the arguments seemed poorly thought out, the presentation was scattered, it was just not good.

And harmful. That too.

[mind-on-recovery]

more ableism and fake claiming around this situation. Please report this video for harassment thank you.

Call to action - Plural Community

 Systems need your help! Recently, a hospital targeted the PinkSugarFairies and other systems with an ableist lecture using their videos as an example of “faking” DID.This is extremely unprofessional and dangerous. Please contact the hospital mentioned in this TikTok and tell them what they did was unacceptable and reblog. Systems will not be silenced. 

Keep reading

[sophieinwonderland]

Good psychology and psychiatry needs to acknowledge that culture isn't just spatial, but temporal

There was a whole generation that grew up on black and white TV. The technology of the time altered their dreams so that they dreamt in black and white. Many still do to this day.

But this culture that led to this situation is dead. Children will no longer be born into a world where their dreams will be influenced by only having access to black and white television.

Plural systems 40 years ago didn't have support networks. There was no internet, and no one wanted to talk about hearing voices or feeling like people in their head were taking control of their body.

With the advent of the internet, this culture too is dead, and it's for the best.

Now, systems have access to other systems. We have an environment where we won't be judged, or if we are, it won't affect our relationships with our friends or family outside of the internet until we're ready to come out. We're safe and can support each other. And when systems do come out, they can feel much more comfortable with themselves in doing so.

And this also goes for many DID and OSDD systems as well. The shame attached to many of the symptoms of DID is less pervasive because of community support.

But psychiatry isn't acknowledging that the culture of isolation of the 80s and 90s is largely dead now.

When older doctors see kids coming in who have self-diagnosed and aren't ashamed of themselves, they assume that the children of the internet age should be behaving like the children of past generations. But our own generation isn't that generation.

You're not fake just because you aren't ashamed of what you are and what you experience.

You're not fake because you don't act like the last generation of plurals who didn't have access to the support networks we do today.

And psychiatry HAS to keep up with the times. It has to acknowledge that it can't apply the same standards of the pre-internet era to the post-internet era, because our culture today is radically different from theirs.

And we also need to talk about the mental health crisis when it comes to dissociative disorders that led us here.

There is no mass number of people being misdiagnosed with dissociative disorders. In fact, many studies have shown that people dissociative disorders are more likely to be misdiagnosed with Schizophrenia, and the ones who end up correctly diagnosed have to spend an average of 6 years before getting the correct diagnosis.

For decades, experts have been estimating that the number of people with DID was actually close to 3% of the population. In the US, that's about 9 million people. That's an overwhelming number of mostly-undiagnosed DID systems when so many psychiatrists have been given zero training in treating it.

The shortage of healthcare isn't because of some group of boogeymen "fakers" who are stealing resources.

It's because our culture changed. More systems with dissociative disorders became aware of being systems and are seeking help they need. They don't feel shame at their symptoms like they once would have. And our psychiatric institutions have failed them.

This could have been avoided if more psychiatrists had been trained to diagnose and treat dissociative disorders because they knew that this was a problem.

Instead of acknowledging their own failings on this matter, they are doubling down and fakeclaiming systems publicly for not being ashamed enough of themselves, like "real" systems should be.

TikTokers are not responsible for a lack of resources for systems. A psychiatric institution that ignored all the warning and attempts to raise awareness about the true frequency of these disorders is.

[via-rant]

Canon Leo meeting himself in different universes:

Canon: ... You did what?

OS: Yeah I stabbed Percy the first time I met him.

Hospitality (by @moa-broke-me): WHAT THE FUCK??? WHY????

OS: Cause all Nico told me about him was bad stuff so I didn't know he was actually a good person.

Canon: Nico?? What does Nico have to do with it???

OS: You guys aren't best friends in your universe?

Canon: Noooo???? My best friends... dead. Actually. And I... can't... see my other one.

Hospitality: Why are your lives so depressing?

--------

OS: Wait, your moms still alive????

Hospitality: Yeah... we're not demigods in my universe.

Canon: And she's married... to Percy's mom?

Hospitality: Yup!

One In The Corner (OITC): *having flashbacks*

---------

A Lifetime From The Hunt (by @thatonefandomjumper): *explaining what happened after he died and came back*

The rest: *in utter horror*

---------

OS: Is this one a... ghost?

Hospitality: He's a kid though.

Still Eight: I need to get home.

Canon: We're trying bud.

Still Eight: I need to get home, I need to get home, I need to get home.

----------

Guys some of these are ones I made up.

OITC is a really really fucked up AU I had where Leos mom was alive but Gaea kidnapped her when everyone thought she died and forced her to work for her and Leo finds out and is basically just a huge fucking mess. Some middle shit happens and she goes with the Seven and Gaea fucks with them and Leo like "kills" his mom on accident because he thought she was Gaea.

Still Eight is one I made with a friend on discord where instead of Esperanza dying, Leo dies but his ghost/concious gets sent to Tartarus while his body goes missing and stays there until Percy and Annabeth get there and bring him back where he's fully alive and with his mom. (Fuck the rest of the quest byw cause we didn't focus on that lhfoydur.)

Y'all know OS already.

[sysbitching]

Most people in online DID/OSDD communities are severely misunderstanding the McLean Hospital video about social media and malingering DID, to the point that I'm convinced most of them haven't even watched the full video.

No, I don't think they should have posted the lecture online with those peoples' tik toks without contacting them first, or at least censoring their usernames. In the talk they acknowledge that harrassment is an issue in online DID communities so I think that was an oversight on their part.

However.

They are not fake-claiming the people in those videos. The speaker says multiple times that he can't know for sure whether or not the people in the tik toks actually have DID and that the tik toks are just being used as examples. Nowhere does he say that they are faking or anything of the sort. He is pointing out instead how sensationalized, dramaticized, and sanitized DID content on various social media platforms is leading to an upkick in people (especially young people) seeking DID diagnoses.

This is a double-edged sword. Information about DID is becoming more available and less stigmatized, wich leads in some cases to more accurate self-diagnosis for people who may not be able to access psychiatric care for one reason or another. This allows those people to find resources, information, community, etc., online which may be the only option they have available. This is a good thing.

On the flip side, you have a truly massive deluge of misinformation and mischaracterizations of dissociative disorders. And unfortunately, the folks who are presenting in the most sensationalized, innacurate ways are the ones who tend to get picked up most by the algorithm because their content generates more interaction.

Regardless of whether or not those individuals are faking (knowingly or not), he is arguing that these popular sensationalized depictions are making it harder for DID/OSDD to be taken seriously in psychiatric communities, which is troubling because dissociative disorders already have a fraught history in the psychiatric world of being seen as merely products of an overactive imagination.

I'm a bitter transsexual and I rankle a bit at the idea that people in a community need to behave a certain way in order to be taken seriously by folks with systemic power. I think the people invested in disbelieving survivors of severe trauma are going to continue regardless of how 'respectable' we seem.

I do however agree that these depictions are contributing to a wider misconception about what these disorders tend to look like irl (not performing or playing things up for social media) and that this is bringing in people who don't have DID/OSDD, but absolutely have other issues that need to be addressed. Folks who are drawn to those labels because it gives them a sense that their pain has meaning, a feeling of being in a community, of being unique and special. Or folks who don't have DID/OSDD but might have some other form of structural dissociation (there's significant symptom overlap, afterall). Remaining in DID/OSDD spaces will not help those people and will in fact, prolong the time it takes for them to get the care that they need.

Something else I find simultaneously funny and frustrating is that the speaker says that people who have malingered/facticious DID tend to be very upset and angry upon being refused a diagnosis, as their sense of belonging and having meaning for their pain was very much tied up in having that diagnostic label. I'm seeing most of the people complaining the loudest about his lecture acting like this to a T. A hit dog will holler, or what have you.

[system-of-a-feather]

https://mcleanstreaming.partners.org/Mediasite/Play/c785736d0510450aa37a87ccf92ecec41d

We skimmed it cause we were curious but like... didnt fully watch it (cause while we care we also... have other things in life) so take it with a grain of salt but afaik I think its just calling out a lot of malingering behavior and sensationalized behavior on tiktok with fakeclaiming undertones and directly pulls tiktoks from people the speaker knows nothing on.

I think from what I skimmed and what I heard the message is important and informative, it might have some over generalizations though and I do think its fucked up that they used the direct videos without asking or knowing the individuals considering the underlying implications of the video

I do think tiktok and all ARE problematic and not that great for the DID community and are malingering / sensationalized manners but I also don't think malingering and sensationalization = faking

I only skimmed it so Im solely guessing but I wouldnt be shocked if the claims of faking are extrapolated by the viewers rather than his own words by assuming malingering behavior = claiming an individual is fake, but again thats my benefit of the doubt to him and may be entirely wrong.

That said I doubt there is anything there worth calling "malpractice" and people going after his liscense is just kinda insane

I am planning to actually properly watch it and make proper judgements but currently life is a tad busy atm so I might not. But thats my case thus far but *shrugs*

Take my thoughts lightly cause again, I just skimmed it and read some of the discourse on it

I can't find the video besides spliced into 1hr+ angry video response essays which I am absolutely not going to watch but apparently the past couple days some people are trying to get a researcher's license revoked (via change.org petition lol) and are accusing them of "being in on mkultra" because they made a video about self diagnosing DID. Does anyone have a rundown or 👀

[artisticdysfunction]

days without tiktok throwing around RAMCOA allegations with no basis whatsoever: 0

[system-of-a-feather]

McLean Hospital DID Video Controversey; Our (+ our Fiance's) Take

I'm really going to probably primarily summarize our takes in this post. If you want to see my raw chicken scratch notes (changes from scratch to REALLY scratchy due to me putting back on my finger brace for my sprained pinky) you can try to decipher them here. If there is any part you want me to translate, reblog and/or send an ask or something, but ya know

I have a saved copy of the video here.

Anyways some context to mine and my fiance's background and relevancy to this topic that reflect our opinions and biases on the topic

Me: I have been diagnosed with DID for a while. I've been on social media (briefly on twitter for 2 seconds, but arguably I think one of the larger DID blogs on tumblr maybe? *bless invisible follower accounts*) and use it with a DID focus on one of my social medias. Used to follow DID Youtube. I am also a research nerd and actually, back in university, would try to find time to come out to seminars like this at the place I used to be a research intern on. I very much enjoy these environments and seminars that summarize present concerns and ideas in the research community. I've also basically cleared "stabilization" phase of DID and according to some have achieved what might be considered "functional multiplicity" yet am still progressing with my recovery.

Fiance: He's my partner since 2016 and has been actually living with us for about a month now. He's a communications major with specialization on advertising and marketing and as a decent part of his education focused on how social media is being used and how that stuff plays into effective advertising. He also has a close relationship with his mom that - until he started dating me and I got diagnosed - did he not know that she also had DID as she is of the type that is very ashamed, confused, and embarrassed by it. Between the both of us though, when his mom, him, and I go out to dinner, he is really the only one checked in and its kinda really funny cause he looks like the weird one for not entirely spacing out.

Yes, we made this a mini date night.

Anyways, the point.

The seminar had a lot of really good points, a few alright points, and a few really EHHH points. They also did directly use videos without censoring the users or doing much to protect their identity / reduce risk of harassment which I do feel is problematic cause he did - in part of his discussion about social media and DID - acknowledge that harassment is viral in the DID community for both people who have it and people who don't. I think that in itself is the largest issue and the largest fuck up that he really should honestly put an apology out for imo cause he really did comment on how huge of an issue it is, and did little due diligence to not add to it. While I don't think that is "malpractice" it is unprofessional. Do I think we should take his license for it? No. Do I think he should be held accountable / he owes an apology for that? Yeah probably.

Beyond that huge fuck up, the overall take away I got was that his concern for malingering / maladaptive use on social media on people who DO have DID and those that don't but might think they do / might be faking is absolutely valid and I do think it is someting that needs to be talked about; however he presents it in a kinda problematic way with a clear attitude and perspective that is both very (ironically) trauma stuck and - as my fiance and I started putting it in our conversations - "Boomer Takes"

He comments on how a lot of it is very flashy, performative, and sensationalized and comments on how that can be harmful / dangerous and I do agree, but I also don't think that inherently has anything to do with validating or invalidating how their diagnosis.

I DO absolutely agree with him calling out the trend of monetizing the disorder which I have strong opinions against and I do find it extremely uncomfortable for people to be trying to monetize the disorder outside of genuine extreme situations where support is needed.

I had a lot less of a notable take on the comment on the switches being overt because I actually never seen someone switch in person (his mom is very covert and not the most talkative about hers), but my fiance had a very loud laughing fit over how dramatic and weird they were commenting that neither of the ones he showed looked anything like either of how me or his mom show things.

There was a REALLY good S tier section on the Fantasy Model VS Trauma Model as well as how DID forms and the nature of it in the middle that I think was actually VERY well done and informative and I would like to chef kiss the air at it.

Again, there were a lot of good points to it and it was informative but I do have a few complaints.

The overall issue I find with his rhetoric are

a lot of his points sound mostly anecdotal which is not really the best (he did have some studies but, a lot of "this is not what we see"

he really has a set mindset that seems to summarize to "if they are not completely shocked and traumatized when they switch and are used to it, then they are faking / malingering" which is pretty problematic

he doesn't leave room for the fact that some people with DID do heal and recover from trauma and while most might be experiencing it in a way that is horrifying, people DO heal and discounting the lack of shame and acceptance as reasons to suspect malingering / faking is kind of problematic and against healing ideas

he doesn't leave account for generational gaps in how mental health is approached and while he focuses a lot on how people are inappropriately using DID "content" he only brushes over and vaguely hand gestures at what he would suggest "healthy" usage to look like which once again doesn't serve to be the most productive of conversation

his very understanding of the disorder in short is very dependent on the idea that people with DID "are usually ashamed" and "very traumatized" which the latter is true but again, healing exists

a point my fiance brought up is that while he has a lot of good concerns and points, a lot of his points come from anecdotes and how he "doesn't see these things in his practice" but he never really talked to any of the people he is commentating on the behavior of and the thing with social media is those with the largest following tend to be the extreme ends of whatever niche they are in so it is likely that those with extreme followings likely have extreme (ie atypical) experiences of the disorder simply by the nature of how the disorder is

Anyways, theres probably a few more details worth commentating on or transcribing from my notes but my pinky is sprained and i already wrote a shit ton for this so Imma give it a break and not type it all up.

TLDR: its not the best delivered video but it does have its merrit and the overall concept / concern is valid and important, but the dudes a boomer and has an issue of "poor traumatized and broken meow wows" about people with DID that is kinda annoying and out of touch

TLDR 2: Guys he didn't do fucking malpractice. People who are saying he did malpractice honestly need to get off the internet and learn how to use those words correctly cause yall are watering it down. (insert world heritage meme on the word 'gatekeeping' and 'gaslighting')

Absolutely feel free to reblog/send asks for more elaboration and all on it, but thats just my notes and take from it.