difference b/w did and mpd

I read this article on the difference b/w did and mpd. Its http://www.dissociation.com/index/Definition/

Has anyone heard anything like this? Thoughts?

DID and MPD are the same thing accoding to the american psychiatry asspciation and the DSM IV TR (Diagnostic Statistical Manual 4th edition Text Revised.) The DSM IV TR is the diagnostic manual used world wide for diagnosing mental disorders along with specific tests geared to diagnose mental disorders such as the MMPI, DES, DDIS, and others.

Basically the label and term Multiple personality Disorder has been changed to the label and term Dissociative Identity Disorder. Just like the label and term Manic Depression is now called the label and term Biporar Disorder.

The psychiarty field changed the name for the disorder called Multiple Personality Disorder to the name Dissociative Identity Disorder because Dissociation is what is actually what the disorder is - the person dissociates (mentally daydreams) thier self out of the abuse situation in which there is no real physical escape of walking or running away from the abuser and when a person daydreams their self out of the abuse situation their memories are stored at the unconscious level of thinking and acted out unconsciously when ever the person daydreams their self out of any triggering situation.

Yeah. The idea is to emphasise dissociation as a mechanism (coping strategy) rather than to emphasise alternative identities as personalities (hence possibly persons) in their own right.

While the DSM is supposed to be theorietically neutral... It isn't theorietically neutral as is apparant from the blurb.

Ah. I've written stuff on this but probably no point trying to post it as it will only get 'moved'.

There is an abundance of stuff on MPD / DID. An abundance of stuff and a range of variation in the quality too...

I'm a little wary of a fair few of the claims made in the article. For example:

> in the world outside the USA, MPD still exists. Only in the USA have all multiples been told they have a false belief that they have alters running their bodies.

Actually the majority of dx of DID / MPD come from clinician's working in bible belt areas of the US. That has led many to claim that DID / MPD is a culture bound syndrome that is fairly much limited to the United States of America. While there has been a surge of cases reported in Australia, they were reported AFTER a certain clinician in the USA was struck off the register (for misconduct) and set up shop in Australia. There aren't many cases reported in the UK. There aren't many cases reported in NZ. The majority of cases come from... Bible belt areas of the US.

I don't think anyone questions the existence of the disorder (by which I mean I don't think anyone questions the fact that there are indeed people who meet dx criteria for DID / MPD).

The controversy is mostly around whether the disorder is a natural kind (like alzheimers and co) or whether the disorder is a therapists creation. Kluft reported that it was very rare indeed to encounter a full blown case (meeting criteria) PRIOR to treatment. That in the initial phases of treatment there are mere 'windows of diagnosability where the client may exhibit transatory symptoms'. Thus sceptics maintain that over enthusiastic therapists shape the symptoms into full blown cases in their zealousness...

That is the main item of controversy. I'd post links to the 'Psychological Bulletin' which is available online so people could get into the spirit of the debate, but I think you need a subscription to access...

Another claim... He mentions trauma before age 7. That is an empirical question. Memory is a constructive process and if therapists and clients both believe that trauma before age 7 is the only explanation for their symptoms then what do you know... Memories are recovered... Thus fueling the plight of the false memory foundation. Sigh.

Before one asks whether it is possible for there to be more than one self to a body one needs to be clear on what a self is. Same goes for 'personality' or 'identity'. Most theorists these days think that selves are social constructs so I don't see why they should be so hesitant to think that one couldn't construct more than one... Typically they are okay with admitting that one could construct more than one... The real debate is over whether the disorder is naturally occuring or whether it is therapist induced.

Consider hysterical paralysis that was popular around the time Freud and Co displayed an interest in it. You don't see much of it anymore - how come? Because therapists stopped showing an interest in it... And... The Multiple Personality (or the Dissociative Personality) was born.

Eastersvirtue.....Hmmm...I see the writer's thought process. Makes sense in some respects.

The labels are just that...labels. An effort to place everybody in a nice neat little box for them to better be able to define. If you don't fit in the box then they will be glad to either try and change you or the box to ease their minds so everybody fits.

We should perhaps be careful to not wander closer to the discussion on whether it all exists it appears the last post was dangerously close.

Same thing - Different name..... probably due to the progress and knowledge of the disorders.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

sorry i didnt mean to cause a debate. u can close this if it hurts anyones feelings.

No hurt feelings..... just talking & sharing - Its All Good.

LoVe,
Rhapsody - ((( hugs )))

no hurt feelings to me.

er... does debate hurt people's feelings? i don't mean to sound hostile / for people to feel hostile in response to what i say... i'm just trying to discuss things. i'm not trying to argue in the raised voices attacking kinda way, but i do like to talk about stuff.

i really don't understand what the big deal is with the 'you can't talk about whether the disorder exists or not' stuff.

people meet criteria therfore OF COURSE it exists.

the debate was never around whether it existed or not, it was about its nature. are we allowed to discuss its nature? (ie different theories of the disorder)?

i don't understand...

i'm sorry

by the way... if it makes any difference i'm dx DID. i'm not at all trying to suggest the disorder is BS or anything like that... or that it is all in ones head. i'm not.

Does not hurt my feelings either and I apologize if I upset anybody. I certainly do not feel that the original topic is in any way cause for hurt feelings Eastersvirtue.

I was simply trying to express my opinion that it matters little what it is called. The name does not change the disorder. The pain, confusion, and anguish (sp?) felt is the same no matter what they call it.

As for the debate part...I just felt it was getting close and wanted to express my concern...Doc John felt strongly enough about this to make it a rule and I can only assume he did so for a valid reason.

No problem...sorry if anybody was upset.

place

hey. i appreciated your post, place. i thought it was very tactful and i do accept the warning as a friendly warning. i'd hate to be the reason a thread got locked / deleted :-( and that isn't my intention.

i just wonder about that rule... but i'm not supposed to talk about that on the boards so i'll just zippit (hard for me 'cause i like to talk about things out in the open like).

I agree with you that there isn't so very much in a name. You are right, the pain, frustration, disability etc is real and regardless of what they call it it is still very real :-(

Theory and conceptualisation... Can impact the way symptoms are experienced, however. That is why I've personally found that looking at different theories / conceptualisations has helped me make sense of things and it has helped me in my recovery too... But I don't think I'm supposed to post about that either... So I typically stay away from this forum really 'cause I don't want to upset people more than I have already...

IMHO, if we were all text book lab rats then we would fit the labels, since we are alllll individuals we are people with uniquce (sp) qualities
Reah

I am learning to take everything I read with a grain of salt so to speak. I read most of the site and even clicked on other things and really looked around reading alot of it. It was written in the late '90's and much has gone on in the field of psychology since. He has his experiences and his opinions. He talks of things like "other lives" and "celestial beings" and such--very interesting BUT---
A grain of salt. One psychologist's opinions, observations and theories. There are others out there also. Some things help me understand others just boggle my mind and confuse me more. Too much knowledge can be as bad as none at all for me.
What it really comes down to is that we all have had our full share of abuse, opinions, labels and other such cr*p. The bottom line is that we are all trying to heal and work through all of it.
I so agree Reah, that we are individuals with unique qualities that don't fit neatly in boxes with labels. And ALL those individual qualities is what makes our systems what they are. Unique to us and how we survived what we did.
Just my thoughts
w_i