Talk:Multiplicity (subculture)

In regards to the hatnote

I was reading the hatnote and it said This article is about the online subculture. For the psychological and philosophical concept . However I don't think that's accurate as there is already a philosophical article for multiplicity it should just be psychology Multiplicity (philosophy) Kuia34 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Iatrogenic effects

@Kate the mochii I saw your section about Iatrogenic effects and after reading the teenvogue article (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dissociative-identity-disorder-on-tiktok ) I think that section is better suited to Dissociative identity disorder . The teen vogue article is discussing the online DID community and not necessarily the multiplicity subculture.(as multiplicity is not mentioned once) and as this paper shows https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468749921000570 there is a distinction between the online plurality/multiplicity subculture and regular DID online groups. Kuia34 (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That is the same community (the research papers calls the online DID/system/alter community "multiplicity", which is the convention I decided to stick by). The scope of this article are online multiple personality communities. I branched it off the main DID article, so more detailed information can be included here. Kate the mochii (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

could you quote where in the paper it states that the general DID online community is the same as the multiplicity subculture. and no this article is not about online multiple personality communities it's about a specific subculture of people... Kuia34 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the online plural community, which DID individuals are part of (read Vice article). Also, see the three revert rule. Kate the mochii (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes but in that same vice article it gives a definition of the multiplicity community here.

The multiplicity community insists on being seen as healthy—even normal. This is our reality, they argue. Why are you imposing your reality onto us? Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)—and its controversial precursor, Multiple Personality Disorder—are terms roundly rejected by the community, and most of them don't feel that they belong in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) at all. It's not that they don't believe people can suffer from DID (or, more broadly, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified [DDNOS]). They just don't accept that they suffer from it. To them, all those with DID/DDNOS are multiple, but not all multiples are DID/DDNOS. Contrary to what a DID/DDNOS diagnosis implies, multiples want everyone in their system to be seen as people. Not fragments, alters, or personalities, but distinct individuals who happen to be inhabiting the same physical body.

this isn't the only source that the multiplicity is defined along similar parameters Kuia34 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So based on these parameters alot of the sources linked that are about the online general d.i.d community wouldn't be considered to be talking about this specifc subculture. Kuia34 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The precise term would be "online communities of people that use multiple personalities". All of the sources here are about this topic. Some talk about communities that have DID gatekeeping, others focus instead on plurality with no reference to mental illness. Kate the mochii (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes the DID indivuals are apart of the subculture but a topic about did communties online doesn't make it about the subculture. If you read the orginal paper I sent you online the online plural culture is different from the standard one of D.I.D. Shared beliefs are what make a subculture ... a subculture . Which was my orginal point this article is about a specfic **subculture** of indivuals who identify with having multiple personalities. NOT about just general communities online of people with/use multiple personalities.

Kuia34 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Those communities have shared vocabulary, beliefs, etc. They also may have drama and disagreements (like the gatekeeping issue), obviously. Yet all the sources presents them as one. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii This isn't about drama or disagreements and I really don't care about any gatekeeping issue going on in niche online discourse. All of the sources define the multiplcity subculture in a specfic way **none** of the sources present multiplicty the same as the general online DID community. The D.I.D sources your citing are not in refernce to this subculture that is the main issue. Even the vice article you were trying to say included all general online communities clearly doesn't say that Kuia34 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

literally certain communities online are JUST not apart of this subculture every source that is talking about the multiplicity community makes a distinction between them and the general DID community. Kuia34 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've brought out literally multiple sources that make a distinction even the vice article you cited to make the claim that the general online did community is the same as the muliplicty community had this to say:

"The multiplicity community insists on being seen as healthy—even normal. This is our reality, they argue. Why are you imposing your reality onto us? Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)—and its controversial precursor, Multiple Personality Disorder—are terms roundly rejected by the community, and most of them don't feel that they belong in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) at all. It's not that they don't believe people can suffer from DID (or, more broadly, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified [DDNOS]). They just don't accept that they suffer from it. To them, all those with DID/DDNOS are multiple, but not all multiples are DID/DDNOS. Contrary to what a DID/DDNOS diagnosis implies, multiples want everyone in their system to be seen as people. Not fragments, alters, or personalities, but distinct individuals who happen to be inhabiting the same physical body."  

you continuously just ignore sources and put whatever you want in the article. Kuia34 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Branching off on my point that this article is about a subculture not just communities of people with multiple personalities. The history section should be for the history of the subculture not for the history of each indivual community. For example you shouldn't put the history of tulpamancy here that belongs in the article for tulpamancy similar things apply for other communities within the subculture.... The point is that the wikipedia pages that exist already for indivual communties should be used when describing issues within that spcefic community this page is broader. if we want could use a project sidebar for multiplicity similar to something like Template:Wicca and then just put it on relevant pages. but that would be iffy for me as the sources/research on the multiplicty subculture define it as a subculture with specific beleifsKuia34 (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles can overlap (for instance there is the Main article: ... template) Kate the mochii (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your right but something like the history of tulpamancy doesn't really...overlap. It has it's own article for that Kuia34 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The vice article made that point, which is why I included it. Or I would only have left the mailing list sentence otherwise. Kate the mochii (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii The mailing list thing only talked about the broad multiplicity terminology ...which doesn't really have anything to do with the tulpa community. The point is nothing about the tulpa community history really intersects with the history of this subculture... It's just the history of one particular community which is why it doesn't need to be in the article Kuia34 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a quote from the Vice article

We see the idea of autonomous-but-bodiless consciousness in Tibetan Buddhists, who allegedly invented tulpamancy, where one meditates and conjures up imaginary beings that eventually become sentient. Spirit possession is ritualized in religions from Pentecostal Christianity to Haitian Vodou. Even Descartes's famous dictum, "I think, therefore I am" can be read in a multiplicity-hued light—if multiple beings inside one body are all thinking, don't they all "exist"? Point is, multiplicity wasn't born on 1990s internet forums, or dreamed up by lonely gamers longing for imaginary friends. Aspects of it, at least, have been around for centuries.

It mentions tulpamancy, spirit possession and vodou and claims that the multiplicity community descends from those practices. I agree that too much attention is given to tulpamancy, which is why I fixed it. Kate the mochii (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

but that isn't apart of the history of the subculture though... That part is just talking about how similar concepts have exitsed throughout history . The modern day subculture doesn't directly orginate from those practices the culture itself is modern and is from the 1990s. @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed the section name to Origins and Related communities.

Origins ----> 1990s

Related Communities ----> What the source has to say about vodou, spirit possession, tulpamancy. Link to tulpamancy, a related community, which overlaps with multiplicity (source: https://multiplicity.fandom.com/wiki/Tulpagenic, not reliable, but just to make the point) Kate the mochii (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii well I thank you for changing it but it's slightly redundant since the definition section kind of already does the same thing... so maybe a merger or something would be needed. The article still needs a history section though for the general history of the subculture. Kuia34 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also again like to say that multiple times within the article you cite sources but the sources your citing don't back up what your saying. One example (of many) is on the wikipedia page it says "According to a member of the community interviewed by Vice, the multiplicity community and related vocabulary like "alter" or "system" originated in mailing lists of the 1980s." but the actual vice article says that the terms that orginated from mailing lists were actually "system", "multiple", and"fronting" not the terms you put Kuia34 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I fixed that Kate the mochii (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is another issue in the definition section:

• Spiritual, cultural, paranormal, or roleplay practices.

Others are more exclusive to people that have dissociative disorders.

however none of the sources your citing say anything about spirtual,cultural,paranormal or roleplay practices. On to the second claim neither teenvogue nor the research paper titled "Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview Study on Personal Experiences of People with Multiple Selves" talk about any type of discourse (the teen vogue article doesn even talk about multiplicty or plurality let alone in contrast to gatekeep or exclude other practices) WP:NOTOPINION wikipedia is intended to be unbiased it's **not** the place to be putting in your opinions regardless of your opinions . Multiple sources define the multiplicity subculture in contrast/in disinction of online did communities as such the stuff that needs to be in this article needs to be about the subculture as defined by those parameters.  ::::::@Kate the mochii

Kuia34 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

On to the second claim neither teenvogue nor the research paper titled "Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview Study on Personal Experiences of People with Multiple Selves" talk about any type of discourse

Here is the relevant quote from the research paper:

For this reason, the existence of online forums for multiplicity is not without any risk. On the one hand, the online community may prevent members seeking professional help, and on the other hand, individuals with disturbed but not dissociated identity problems also may internalize the group's beliefs and rules, further increasing the severity of their fragmentedness.

As a reminder, I only use it to justify that online groups cause iatrogenesis: detrimental health outcomes (worsening of symptoms) caused by healthcare resources (online support communities). Kate the mochii (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

But what the paper is describing is *not* about iatrogenesis but rather is describing something more along the lines of Refusal of medical assistance and that's not even what iatrogenesis means in the context of psychiatry. Kuia34 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

also what you were citing for a huge majority of the iatrogenesis claims werehttps://www.inverse.com/input/culture/dissociative-identity-disorder-did-tiktok-influencers-multiple-personalities and https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dissociative-identity-disorder-on-tiktok Kuia34 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

also also by "second claim" what i was referring to was the statement "

Others are more exclusive to people that have dissociative disorders."

Kuia34 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Iatrogenesis (2)

@Seteleechete: I named it that way because the word means:

• Harmful medical outcomes (eg. misdiagnosis, demonstrating increased symptoms)
• caused by a medical resource (online support communities)

I think that claiming multiplicity without a disorder is only part of the above and what is mentioned in the section (it's also mentioned that some people having the disorder heal slower, for example). The section reads (in order):

• The recommendation algorithm and group response promoting exaggerated symptoms.
• Self-diagnosis culture, leading to increased epidemiology.
• Reinforcement effect on the in-group, leading people to keep their symptoms.
• Fakeclaiming/Faking allegations, leading DID patients to question their diagnosis (delayed treatement).

If you read all of them, they are pretty much all examples of "harmful medical outcomes" caused by the "medical resource" (the online support community), so iatrogenesis is a good synonym to describe this.

Also I heard Wikipedians say that having a section called "controversy" sections are bad for the article. You might ask question: to who is this even a controversy? Kate the mochii (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This split should allow coverage of various topics. Idk if controversy is a bad word I used it for discourse/debate/dispute. Maybe another title or moving things out more separately? Either way I don't necessarily think iatrogenesis seem to cover every topic there either. Seteleechete (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to remove the overarching "Controversy" hat and just keep the subsections as you made them. Kate the mochii (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Seteleechete: Also, perhaps merging the "claiming ..." and "faking" sections since they essentially touch the same debate Kate the mochii (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same debate at all though one is about falsely claiming (or not) if you have DID the other is claiming multiplicity without DID. Those are distinct claims.

Also all three (debate on iatrogenesis and it's negative effect, debate on fake claiming/faking and debate on non-disordered multiplicity) seem to my eyes as controversies versus multiplicity communities and their portrayal/function of those things. Though I am not familiar enough with how Wikipedia uses the term to really tell for this context. Seteleechete (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that adding controversy would make the article less neutral since the sources don't really talk about people being outraged by it. They only explain certain mechanisms by which members end up expressing more symptoms or delaying their treatement.

Also, all the sources all set out to not say, intrinsically who has and who hasn't a disorder. I think that saying "Claiming multiplicity without a disorder" is not neutral, since multiplicity was coined to cover both DID and enacted identities, without attacking anyone personally as a "liar" (the sources rarely mention anyone being a liar). Let me know what you think! Kate the mochii (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The fake claiming source pretty much only talks about faking/fake claiming in relation to DID and how it hurts their community(nothing on non-DID claims of multiplicity).

The multiplicity source talks about how they are multiple without DID/disorder and how they don't fit with the diagnosis that is being pushed on them and how they dislike the patholagistion of their experience (nothing on fake claiming/faking). I'd say both topics fit and are very much seperate topics. Whether they are contraversies idk Seteleechete (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

1) I agree, it makes sense to remove such an inference.

2) I agree. I transferred it right next to "A researcher wrote that some aspects of the online multiplicity community cannot be explained by the medical picture of DID ..." and "Psychology Today describes members' narratives of non-disorder plurality..." Kate the mochii (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What about putting the fake claiming and iatrogenesis sections under a DID hat?(still thinking of good title) seems odd to have 2 DID specific topics like this as seperate when DID is a sub-topic of multiplicity first. My issue with the topics is more so that I believe they belong under a common hat as a subsection of multiplicity related to DID community than them being contraversies. Seteleechete (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)