Ego States VS DID

I think alexk is right.
Diff for everybody.
\Not all the same
Degree.
Awareness.
Communication btwn.
Lotsa stuff.
Then its not so bad if good communication.
Not so bad if awareness is pretty good.
So, mebbe not sucha prob if these things are this way.
Still kinda sucks even if its just ego states though
But I do OK I guess.
Nuttin more I CAN do.
Just survive.
My very best thots to those who got this prob and worse.

Ego state CAN take over, but main person usu knows, or soon figgers it out cuz monotoring system will sense that all is not right sometimes and so it can be modified to appear more normal.
This is where its NOT DID in my opinion. Cuz DID they don't know. They have blankouts for longer periods of time, they are not notified of changes.
Much harder for did I think than for split. like me.
Ego states can be quite complex too. They are like ages, kids, and adults, and stuff. To me its is emots I mostly notice, not some much actual voices(cepting screaming sometimes-too loud).
But one ego can have all emots, not just one. They can be happy or sad or scared, or angry, or just crazy in head, but other egos can be OK at same time and maintain control.
ALL people can do this I think.
People who stay calm while a crisis is ahppeneing are splitting. They putting freaky part away and just dealing w/situ. They are splitting. ANYbody can split.
Thats what I think.
Feels good to say it.
Thank you.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
ShadowsinTheDay said:
Sun Rise: Thanks for getting the thread back on track, and offering your opinion, I thought I had l8st this thread for a minute there. Also, This quote from you,

"My ego states never take me over, they are experienced more as "she" than as "I." "

Isn't it the other way around? Like "I" are ego states cuz they feel like you, and DID, feeles like someone else I guess? Just wondering.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Just quoting again from above:
When one of these [ego] states is invested with ego energy, it becomes “the self” in the here and now. We say it is “executive,” and it experiences the other states (if it is aware of them at all) as “he,” “she,” or “it,” because they are then currently invested with object energy.
This is how I experience it, with my executive being "I" and the other ego states being "she." For example, my little girl ego state did such and such, she felt this, etc. I've heard that in DID, the person actually switches identities and becomes those other alters, but maybe this is wrong. It gets confusing, and probably different people experience it different ways! In therapy, my therapist did ask me sometimes to have conversations with my little girl ego state. I asked her stuff and she responded to me. I, the executive state, would say my part of the conversation outloud so my therapist could hear it. Then I would listen for the response of my ego state, then say her response to my therapist so he could hear. I always reported it to him in third person, she says, "blah, blah, blah." But my little girl ego state never spoke directly to him. And I think in DID, can't the alters sometimes speak directly for themselves, without the intermediary of an executive?

yeah.

though... some people who don't have DID will have ego states communicating directly, too.
the difference there is typically co-consciousness and / or the degree of elaboration in the ego state

Do ego States have other voices? I have heared taht DID does, but the last T I had, I was sort of discussing it with her, and she said that DID voices can't go past the vocal range of the "body" Wondering it it's true or not...

*Wants to kick self... wants to do much more... in a b*d stage... Don't know what to do...) Had to write that, can't keep it in anymore...

ShadowsinTheDay

sure they can have different voices. ego states are, of course, constrained by the brain and the body (just as the main personality is) but there is considerable scope within that.

little kid alters can sound like... little kids. sort of quiet and hesitant. changes in posture and facial expression and dominant emotional tone also contribute to the appearance of difference. the rate and volume and pitch of the voice can be different as well.

Cool. Thanks,

ShadowsinTheDay

also littles can't announciate words, as well as older alters

Got it, thanks.
And little Ego States can?

ShadowsinTheDay

sounds like you are looking for the hard and fast line to distinguish between ego states and alters. kind of trying to construct a list. to the best of my knowledge there really isn't a crucial feature that ego states have that alters lack or that alters have that ego states lack.

the situation is more like this:

ego states have features A, B, C, D, and alters have features E, F, G, H.

the upshot of that is that some people will have something with features A, B, E, F. is it an alter or an ego state? there simply is no fact of the matter.

there is a CONTINUUM between ego states and alters. it is a little like asking 'do i have high blood pressure'? if you make a graph by plotting the blood pressure of various people you will find that blood pressure lies on a continuum. there are a range of different blood pressures. then what we do is we create an arbitrary threshold which involves drawing the line somewhere or other. sometimes there are statistical reasons for doing so (to do with how much of an increase in risk of stroke or whatever). sometimes... there are pragmatic reasons for doing so (we wouldn't want EVERYONE to have dissociative identity disorder now - would we?).

so... there is no easy answer to your question. and what i think (this is my personal belief)... is... why does it matter? to appreciate that there is a continuum between ego states and alters and that there are many indeterminate cases kind of makes it irrelevant whether people dx you one way or the other (IMHO). in fact... to give you a dx kind of misrepresents the situation since it provides the appearance of facts when the actual situation is that... there is an indeterminacy.

Thanks. Ya, I guess I thought there was a clear c*t differance. Sorry everyone. Ya...

Well, I was thinking like a few years ago. (This was before I really got into studying about DID.) I thought, it would be intresting if everyone had DID for a few weeks, that way, they could analez themselves. Again, that was before I really got into studying DID.

Ya, you said it, about the DX thing... It prosent FACTS... Ya... Understand taht quite well actully... Anyways,,,

Then, why to Drs and practicly everyone off line have this view of DID being black outs, and time loiss, and confussion, and wanting to Intagrate, or having ALL Alters having differant voices (Because I've read taht this is not the case for some Multiples, and they can have very few voices of there own.)

Ya, got another question thrown at you guys...

ShadowsinTheDay

Well... A lot of people think that there IS a clear-cut difference. That is kind of understandable because that is the way the DSM (classification system) presents itself. It does acknowledge that a dimensional approach would be more accurate, but that is in the fine print, and most people don't read the fine print!

What you have just described is the 'stereotype' of DID. When clinicians are training... They learn the diagnostic criteria, they surely surely do, but what is even more crucial than the diagnostic criteria is the little accompanying manuals that provide 'stereotypic' cases. (This is why the DSM has the little blurb in the front to the effect of 'the diagnostic criteria cannot be applied to an individuals symptoms in a rule like (algorithmic) fashion. it is intended to be used by a clinician with the relevant training in CLINICAL JUDGEMENT') the notion is that the more an individual resembles the stereotype (in the diagnostically relevant respects) the more accurately it is considered to be an instance of that diagnosis. the less an individual resembles the stereotype (in the diagnostically relevant respects) the less accurately it is considered to be an instance of that diagnosis. clinicians are provided with numerous stereotypic cases in their training so they get the hang of the scope of the diagnosis and what features / symptoms to look out for.

Then they proceed to meet real patients and get practice with seeing how the psychiatrists / psychologists classify them. This is harder because people tend to vary in ways the stereotypic cases did not. More indeterminacy. Basically... Practice practice practice until your judgement comes into line with the judgement of other clinicians. This is what is known as 'inter-rater reliability' (the extent beyond chance to which clinicians agree with the diagnosis that they give to the same individual). Inter-rater reliability is not high for most of the disorders listed in the DSM.

So... basically... You describe the current stereotype of DID. different individuals match some or all of the features of the stereotype to a greater or lesser extent. Whether an individual is close enough to the stereotype to be dx'd with DID or whether they are more properly regarded as having a 'dissociative disorder not otherwise specified' is a matter of clinical judgement. There was some concern that some clinicians judgement was over-inclusive (they were too willing to dx with DID). In an effort to curb the 'dramatic increase in prevalence' they reinstated the amnesia requirement. So... The DSM says that there must be black outs / time loss / amnesia in order for a dx of DID. That being said... One can always use ones 'clinical judgement' to apply the dx regardless... Or one could always 'coax' the behaviours by strategic theraputic intervention (whether it is recognised as such or not).

I get you. Thanks for the info.

ShadowsinTheDay