#personality disorders aren't exactly mutually exclusive

[cluster-c-pds-culture-is]

Cluster something culture is questioning wether it's possible to have both npd and avpd at the same time or if it's maybe just the audhd and I should be sleeping it's 4 am

.

[electricbloodflow]

r/DID toxicity

A post of mine on r/DID got removed for "spreading misinformation." The misinformation? Someone asked what polyfragmentation was and I summarized the information on traumaanddissociation.net, meanwhile someone kept yelling at me that I was wrong because you can only be PF if you have their specific presentation with like ten different obscure things they have that are only seen in programming (which our system coincidentally had but I know many PF systems that don't,) which goes against the clinical literature wherein PF systems have been documented from cases without programming or OA and their structure is a bit different AND EQUALLY VALID, plus not everyone with an RAMCOA background splits and responds the same way even if they are PF.

I'm done. I'm not putting up with this "your system has to be exactly like mine or you're faking" mentality. Half the threads on that sub complain about people who have a different presentation than them and how that's faking.

Things that people on r/DID think mean someone is faking:

Having any fictive alters (uhm, Dr. Kluft has some published research that disagrees with you - fictive and factive alters are well documented!)

Blogging about intimate system details or alter lists. Because apparently having system pride and wanting to allow all of your alters to self-express is faking???

Anyone who overshares instead of being secretive about their disorder is faking, as if oversharing AND undersharing aren't both common trauma responses. People with florid presentations of DID are "role playing." Again, DID is secretive in many people, but in some it is not as well hidden, and in even more people - they feel safe at a certain point and start allowing themselves to openly represent themselves in some spaces - which is a part of their healing process. This is faking according to r/DID apparently.

Don't question fusion - anyone who sees their alters as more than just parts of a whole but as their own person or having their own soul is faking. You are not allowed to form your own opinions on your disorder and discuss them and how others see things. You have to have the exact same opinion as the majority of posters on the sub. Personally, I know the common clinical psychology line on it is that we are fragmented parts of one whole, but I question that because of the finding that alters have different default mode networks and can persist after memories have been shared. It's unclear by what neural mechanism they operate on in the first place. It's unclear what a "personality" is even in singlets. Maybe it is the default mode network, and people with DID according to studies do have more than one. I also have been in treatment for almost 10 years and have never had fusions outside of less than distinct parts and fragments integrating so fuck fusion, we (my system) work better as functional multiples anyway. Also my alters don't really make one whole and continuous person if you added them together, they have mutually exclusive or just different preferences and views that have nothing to do with trauma. It doesn't make sense for us to fuse because we see things in such different but valid and insightful ways, and we coexist wonderfully and sharpen our perspective by sharing things one alter might notice but another didn't. Systems that see themselves as parts of one whole are valid. Systems that want to fuse are valid. Systems that question this are just as valid as well.

Users insulting people who step in and speak up for systems who are invalidated by such posts, even if research is provided showing the thing people are fake claiming is a documented phenomenon. And honestly, you don't need research to back up your existence - it is nice to have, and I'm so glad there is research validating things like fictive-heavy systems because people are so nasty to them when all they're doing is trying to express who they are, but clinical research has not yet investigated so many things about DID and never will fully document what it means to be multiple because research is more focused on symptoms and treatment and not on documenting individual perspectives.

It feels like everyone there has an axe to grind and very few people are there to help others and commiserate.

[tea-otter-man]

I... can't help but feel uncomfortable with the way a lot of earnest, well-meaning, sincere people who are coming from the right place try to defend people with NPD.

Yes, it is absolutely true that not all narcissists are abusers. It adds to the stigma around NPD- a genuine mental health condition- to armchair diagnose an ex on being a narcissist for emotionally abusing you.

But... it's not like people with NPD just never have any symptoms that ever impact anyone else in a negative way, right? People who suffer from mental illness aren't all sympathetically vulnerable innocent victims to standard sensibilities. And while I know it seems like the right, kind thing to do to paint it that way, it just ends up adding to the stigma.

Mental illness can and does make people act out. It makes them lash out in hurtful ways. It drives them into a corner and makes them feel desperate. It makes people feel isolated and worthless and hopeless, feelings that can often lead to volatile emotional extremes. It might make them cold, manipulative, unempathetic (both lacking affective and cognitive empathy). It might even distort someone's comprehension of reality and their actions to the point they don't even realize what they're doing could be hurtful to another person.

And portraying that all as just "bad people doing bad because they are bad" adds to the stigma, because it has to operate under the false misunderstanding that symptoms are always under someone's control. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of defining mental illness, the entire thing that makes the whole construct useful, is to point out times when behavior isn't under someone's control.

I'm very interested in the reasons why people abuse others. And nothing I've ever seen has been as cut and dry as "they are evil because they have the Bad Person Disorder", and really, "they are evil because they just simply are, like, they just happened to be that way, they chose that. Why? Uh, well, because they're evil. That's it. End of story" is... not exactly a step up from that.

I have to tell you the truth- I'm not convinced by incuriosity or intentional, apathetic ignorance, even over emotionally charged subjects. People with NPD can be hurtful, even abusive, because of their disorder. And if you really want to help destigmatization, you have to be curious, you have to try and have compassion, you can't just write it off as evil and not talk about it- because that is quite literally the opposite of destigmatization!

That doesn't mean people have to go sympathetically nodding along and doing everything their abusive exes say. But it does mean, this is a lot more complex and interesting than you think it is, and going "Mental illness victims good. Abusers bad. As well all know, good and bad are mutually exclusively opposites. Ergo, mental illness victims are never abusers", then dusting off your hands and patting yourself on the back for a job well done, is not doing the matter any justice!

[starfishinthedistance]

Okay I wasn't planning on talking about it, but I think I will anyway: I don't think ADHD should be reanamed. The current name is accurate enough and changing it would just harm awareness.

I've heard people say "oh we have to get rid of the 'disorder' part, we're not disordered we're neurodivergent!", first of all 'disordered' and 'neurodivergent' are not mutually exclusive, in fact most ND people are disordered, and second of all, we are disordered, though? Even in a perfect world where my ADHD is perfectly accommodated, I still can't get anything done because of executive dysfunction. I still forget important things all the time. I still get genuinely suicidal from rejection because of RSD. I still ruin relationships because I get too caught up in hyperactivity/inattention to obey social cues. Yes, there are good parts to ADHD, but I am still disabled and I am still disordered.

There's also the argument of "oh but we aren't actually deficit in attention" and while that is true, the term 'attention-deficit' still isn't completely inaccurate, because we do have a deficit in regulating attention and that's where the symptoms come from. The term 'attention-deficit' describes it well enough, I don't see the point of changing the entire name of the disorder when it's not exactly inaccurate.

The final one I hear is "but not all of us are hyperactive! there's ADHD-I people too!" and I've talked about this before, but ADHD-I people do experience hyperactivity, it's just more internalized. And their nervous system is still hyperactive, which again is where the symptoms come from. There's nothing inaccurate about the H part at all.

Changing the name just because one part of it isn't as accurate as it could be is ridiculous, especially when the name ADHD is so recognizable. It'd just make awareness even harder. It's already a nightmare trying to get people to stop using 'ADD', it's gonna be even worse if we tried to phase out 'ADHD' too.

Unless the name of a disorder is seriously inaccurate or harmful to the people with it, changing it is not helpful at all and is actually quite counterintuitive. It made sense with, for example, MPD to DID (because DID is not a personality disorder, and alters are separate states of consciousness and not separate personalities), but with ADHD there's no reason to change it. Focus on things that will actually help us, please.

[shaaknaa]

The first thing Toxic Masculinity does, is harm the men who participate in it. Only then does it spill over to harm other people.

I went on a similar rant a little while ago about feminine beauty standards (the easy example of Toxic Femininity). I want you to imagine a reserved Lumberjack. Doesn't really express his emotions, but also doesn't care what people think. They don't need to be dominant because they only bother with other people once in a while. Combine with a successful CEO who can express exactly what emotions he wants in order to dominate the competition.

Imagine trying to do both of those at once. Imagine there are a dozen other mutually exclusive stereotypes you have to live up to. What do you think that does to a person? Trying to control themselves so hard they can't spend the energy to just interact with people like humans need to? Getting criticized no matter what?

Yeah. They go crazy. They don't tend towards eating disorders like women (though men are not immune to the beauty standards train and can also run into said problem). Men are more likely to develop anger management issues, depression, and commit suicide.

Problem is, all the good coping mechanisms aren't "manly" enough. So while they try to stamp down on all the healthy mechanisms that will get them ridiculed, sooner or later, they lash out, and become toxic to those around them as well.

Nothing about this is inevitable. If you feel like a man, you are one. If you do what makes you happy while feeling like a man, it's manly. You don't need to bend to society's will.

Stop writing men as if modern Western toxic masculinity were the default throughout time and space.

Your medieval knights can share a pallet at night because it’s cold in this castle and they’re demonstrating their respect and affection for each other by sharing physical proximity.

In the far future, your dude can be a scientist adventurer robot captain, but he can also make food for people to demonstrate his affection and dance to show off his happiness.

Many cultures alive today expect the average man to be good with children, to be able to diaper a baby, to know how to assist in childbirth. Your men don’t have to go, “Oh god, an infant, I’ve never touched one of those before.”

Before modern Europe, there was nothing unmanly about loving colour, fashion, art, and decoration. Flowers weren’t always emasculating. Emotions weren’t always considered signs of weakness. Men got to want and have warm, close, affectionate friendships with other men.

In many ways, Western toxic masculinity of the last few centuries has been the exception, not the rule.