|
AmandaLouise, you will believe what you believe and that is okay - I understand that if you have gone through your healing under the belief that you are the 'core' person and the others are alters it would be all but impossible for you to concpetualize it differently. That is what has worked and still does work for you, and that is okay. But neuroscience is now leading the understanding about the neurobiological basis of the development of dissociative identity disorder in another direction and it is okay for me to share this information here.
The proposed change for the DSM-V (as of 30th April, 2012) is as follows: Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession. This involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.
The updated diagnositc criteria do NOT state there is a 'host' or 'core person' that experiences this disruption in identity. In fact, if we pick this apart according to dictionaries and reference books there is no reference to a person or physical body at all. It focuses on the psychological experience of identity and the division of this sense of identity into at least two personality states (ways of being). In basic mathematical terms it is not one whole person plus two separate alters, but one whole sense of identity divided into at least two separate identity states. If the proposed change goes through that is how the APA will then be directing you and your colleagues to interpret it.
While I am sure many of your colleagues in your immediate circle may well currently believe as you do, it is extremely improbable that all mental health practitioners in New York, USA, believe the same. There are currently many New York mental health practitioners who belong to the ISST-D group, so obviously they are already embracing the new theories, developments, understandings and treatment guidelines for DID. Some studies have shown that as few as 21% of certified psychiatrists believe there is strong evidence for the validity of the diagnosis of DID, despite the fact that it is right there in there diagnostic manual and regardless of how the APA directs them to interpret the diagnostic criteria. It would be a statistical anomaly if it so happened that all psychiatrists in the New York area happened to buck this overwhelming trend. I do believe that it is true of your immediate circles that your colleagues believe and interpret the DSM-IV as you do, but to say that everyone in New York believes the same is a gross overgeneralization that just doesn't hold up.
|