i think it is a fairly terrible article myself.

firstly, there is a considerable conceptual difference between 'multiple personalities' and 'dissociated identities'. the average number of alters is controversial (and i'm not seeing references).

> Another unusual feature of MPD is that each of a multiple's personalities possesses a different brain-wave pattern.

when we are doing different things our brain is, of course, in a different state. people are having enough trouble finding one self in the brain and as for finding more than one...

> Each has his own name, age, memories, and abilities. Often each also has his own style of handwriting, announced gender, cultural and racial background, artistic talents, foreign language fluency, and IQ.

that is an over-generalisation.

> Even more noteworthy are the biological changes that take place in a multiple's body when they switch personalities

which isn't so remarkable when you consider that the 'biological' changes are those that are known to have the greatest psychosomatic (which is to say psychological) component.

> Frequently a medical condition possessed by one personality will mysteriously vanish when another personality takes over.

hence that isn't so mysterious after all.

> By changing personalities, a multiple who is drunk can instantly become sober.

on a police breath / blood check? i don't think so...

> Other conditions that can vary from personality to personality include scars, burn marks, cysts, and left- and right-handedness. Visual acuity can differ, and some multiples have to carry two or three different pairs of eyeglasses to accommodate their alternating personalities. One personality can be color-blind and another not, and even eye color can change... There are cases of women who have two or three menstrual periods each month because each of their subpersonalities has its own cycle.

when these can't be explained by psychosomatic effects (or by the person manipulating their body) these are the sorts of claims that undermine the reputability of the diagnosis.

it is people who claim that dissociatives are 'remarkable' and 'bizzare' and 'special' and the like and make claims that are not supported by the evidence that leads others to think that the whole thing is a crock and they want to distinguish themselves from the whole fiasco and end up saying silly things about the phenomena not existing.

there is a middle ground here... somewhere...