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)

@Kate the mochii You still need to remove the stuff relating to the online DID community since you have failed to provide a source that there the same community Kuia34 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 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)

I think it would cause a problem since the sources interchange multiplicity and online DID communities freely since there's overlap, like this one which is used a lot:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468408/

They treat it essentially as a black box since it's impossible to determine who has and who hasn't DID. Though, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202302/enacted-identities-multiplicity-plurality-and-tulpamancy explicitly says that multiplicity is a superset of DID, the online community seems to be identical. Let me know what you think Kate the mochii (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The psychologytoday article says -

" find the experience more affirming than distressing, and don't typically see themselves as having a mental disorder (they often consider DID as a subset of multiplicity). " via this article did is a subset of multiplicity not the other way around. As for : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468408/ it doesn't talk about the online DID community once it really only discusses the multiplicity community and doesn't really use it interchangeably with any other community .

I would like to hear other opinions on this Kuia34 (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no sources that say that there are two distinct "DID" and "multiplicity" online communities, which is why the scope of this article is just "online communities of people who have multiple personalities". This article is called multiplicity subculture, by consensus on the other talk page, and since the sources present it as the more general overarching concept of displaying multiple personalities. Kate the mochii (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to bring up the same thing that I brought up previously for this specfic line in definitions section:

Enacted identities as spiritual, cultural, paranormal, roleplay or meditative practices. The https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202302/enacted-identities-multiplicity-plurality-and-tulpamancy article doesn't really describe any of these practices the only time spirtual practices are mentioned is when the author is describing the history of tulpamancy but then goes on to make a distinction between the two with -

"This brings us to the modern-day revival of "tulpamancy."

I don't really have an issue with the statement being in the article I just want a better source for the claims. Another issues is the discussion of online discourse , again I have no issue with it but the vice article your citing for the statement doesn't discuss online discourse.... This is only two examples there is a huge problem in the article with making random claims then citing something that just doesn't support the statement. Wikipedia:Fictitious references. Via multiple edits Kate The Mochii has continuously edited the article to support there own views on some niche online discourse. Which is why I called them out for Wikipedia:NOTOPINION though in hindsight it would be sightly better described as Wikipedia:SOAPBOX again I have no issue with the stuff stated here I just need proper sources. Kuia34 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The concept of multiplicity began with 19th century mesmerist who were bewildered by the fact that when they induced magnetic sleep in a person a new life emerged which the subject was unaware existed with some even claiming that this new personality could live a continuous life of its own. This caused the creation of the concept of dipsychism the idea that the human mind was duality.

That you? Kate the mochii (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That part isn't biased nor did I say anything that the book didn't say? You can read the book I'm citing for free on internet archive that being : The Discovery Of The Unconscious: The History And Evolution Of Dynamic Psychiatry. Basic Books. page 145-146 the second book I cited isn't on internet archive but it's : Personification Using the Dialogical Self in Psychotherapy and Counselling. Taylor & Francis. page 62. you can maybe find a pdf for it online if not search for the page on google books. The reason I edited the section was because when I was done writing it I realized I left out alot of relevant information like who coined the term , etc as well as making what I wrote slightly better to read if you go read the source everything I'm adding is a near copy and paste. (not actually a copy and paste but you get the point)

Anyway moving away from that trying to make this discussion about me doesn't shift the blame away from you . Please remove the stuff that isn't supported by any of your sources. Kuia34 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That is what tags like citation meeded and better source needed are for. I already implemented what you mentioned above too. Kate the mochii (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The lines from the definition section that don't match the source are still there, but thank you and I'll use those tags. Kuia34 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

https://i.ibb.co/Wn1Hgst/Screenshot-20230701-093900-264.png

https://i.ibb.co/yyG3Q6X/Screenshot-20230701-093949-2.png

https://i.ibb.co/ZVFTHV2/Screenshot-20230701-094048-2.png

https://i.ibb.co/bshctvm/Screenshot-20230701-094222-096.png

If for whatever reason you can't find it here are the screenshots i cited from the book page 145-156.If after seeing this you still think I'm not quoting my sources correctly we can talk about it on the talk page of Multiplicity (psychology) Kuia34 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you are asserting that (member of a fringe/discredited profession) performed miracles, which is most certainly biased. When you are citing sources here and in the other page, I believe you are taking them at face value and missing context. For instance, you are concluding that there are exactly two DID and multiplicity online communities because one or two sources use different terminology. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that what the mesmerists did is true or false but that stuff is relevant to the history (even though the term "polypsychism" ended up being used in psychology i still need to add the mesmerist history)for example I may not believe what tibetan buddhist due is true but it's still relevant to modern tulpamancy and my claims that the online DID community and the multiplicty subulture are two separate community is not based on terminology :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468749921000570 @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources say collectively that those are just two different attitudes in the same online community (for example who share a common vocabulary and are on the same websites). As source 1 and Psychology Today say, the multiplicity label was co opted by people in online communities who felt like they had milder symptoms than DID but who still felt plural.

The scope of this article, as indicated in the lead and the short text, is "online communities of people with multiple personalities". Kate the mochii (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned in the definition section that online multiple personality communities can either gatekeep DID, or embrace multiplicity. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

but none of the sources your citing are saying that ... that is the issue . @Kate the mochii I read through everything cited in the definition section and nothing was mentioned about gatekeeping Kuia34 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources cited in faking/fakeclaiming do or else there wouldn't such a section. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

but the sources don't say anything about exculiding groups of people from the multiplicity label which is what your stating INSTEAD what the article is describing is people gatekeeping who does and doesn't have DID never once mentions plurality or multiplicty. @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And? That still makes DID TikTok "a community of people having multiple personality", which is the first sentence of the lead. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The psychology article never mentioned co-opting or any previous use of the term multiplicity .
2. The paper "Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview Study on Personal Experiences of People with Multiple Selves" doesn't mention any other community or any type of getkeeping or infighting if it does please quote it.
3. there is a reason I linked you to that one paper since it clearly descrcibes how the plurality community has it's own seperate culture from the did community hence stuff relating to just the general online community for DID is not apart of this subculture.

Kuia34 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not universal terminology and regardless, this article is about online communities of people with multiple personalities, which includes DID, non-DID plurality and faking DID. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No it's not it's about a specific online subculture of people with multiple personalities **not** online communities with multiple personalities, and do you have any proof that this isn't universal terminology. @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychology Today says that all fall under the same label. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The multipliciy subculture does include many communities under the label but the culture is different from the online DID community that is the point. Here are the key points listed at the beginng of the Psychology Today article:

• Multiplicity, plurality, and tulpamancy bring a newfound awareness to the fact that many people experience a non-unitary self.
• Unlike dissociative identity disorder, these plural experiences are often not distressing or functionally impairing.
• Plurality may be better characterized and understood in terms of neurodiversity and Mad Studies.

and again to quote the psych today article :

" an "multiplicity system." Like the "alters" in DID, the "system members" within multiplicity systems "switch" and take turns "fronting," or interacting, with the outside world. But unlike those with DID, many who experience an internal life within a multiplicity system are fully aware of the existence of other members (and therefore use "we" as a preferred pronoun), find the experience more affirming than distressing, and don't typically see themselves as having a mental disorder (they often consider DID as a subset of multiplicity). Rather than experiencing them as "personalities" or "identities" that are mere parts of a "true" whole needing integration, they place their internal life under the umbrella of neurodiversity, often even viewing their system members as "full-fledged people" to the point of having individual rights.^"

"The diversity of the multiplicity experience also tells us that plurality can sometimes be enacted through conscious effort rather than unconsciously as a result of trauma (in the plural community, "non-traumagenic" plurality is sometimes described as "endogenic") and need not be associated with functional impairment or distress so that it shouldn't be equated with a mental disorder the way it is with DID. On the contrary, many find their "functional multiplicity" not only helpful in terms of mental health but wholly satisfying, as if they've finally found a self-concept that meshes with their internal experience. In that sense, multiplicity can be thought of as similar to gender identity—with overlap between multiplicity and gender dysphoria14—representing nothing short of a revolt against the limiting confines of how society defines identity. So it is that new paradigms of neurodiversity, Mad Studies, and self-advocacy activism are trying to tear down the conservative walls of traditional psychiatry and psychology."

This person is comparing and contrasting between the culture of multiplicity and DID. The paper I linked above describes the same thing about how the plural/multiplicty community grew out of DID community and instead became it's own culture and including a varity of experinces Kuia34 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

People with DID not excluded from multiplicity, that would be an absurd statement. Hence, it belongs in an article about multiplicity. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what I'm say is that even though people with DID are apart of the multiplicity subculture it is still distinct from regular online DID communities . Hence things related to the general DID community are not apart of the subculture. Unless you can find a source that says the multiplicity subculture is the same as Online DID communities can you please remove the stuff relating to regular online DID communities and put in the DID wikipedia article. Kuia34 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No because as even you said, DID is a subset in the online multiplicity subculture. Tulpas are discussed in the main article, but information about them is still included here. Consensus was in the previous article's talk page and deletion discussions that this is a non-issue. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The only reason that tulpas are included on this page is because you added them. I even asked you yesterday to remove stuff relating to tulpas. Even though people with DID are apart of the subculture it doesn't not make the culture/community different.... you continue to ignore the sources I'm giving you for your own personal opinion .

what was disscused on the pervious articles talk page/deletion discussions is nothing like what were discussing here . That being:

The distinction between the multiplicity subculture and regular DID communities online. @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Every source on Multiplicty makes a distinction between them and regular DID communities. I asked you to provide a source saying the two communities are the same.... you didnt instead you continue to argue with me about it @Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychology Today refers to tulpas as a form of multiplicity and say that they share jargon (alter) with the broader multiplicity community. The sources do not set out to say things like "the Multiplicity community resides on Tumblr while the DID community resides on TikTok". They explicitly say that DID, other plurals, tulpas are all part of the same online phenomenon. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't go against what I'm saying.... I'm not saying that different communties are not within the culture what I'm saying is that the overaching culture is distinct from regular DID communities. Which is something the article acknowledges multiple times :

ere are the key points listed at the beginng of the Psychology Today article:

• Multiplicity, plurality, and tulpamancy bring a newfound awareness to the fact that many people experience a non-unitary self.
• Unlike dissociative identity disorder, these plural experiences are often not distressing or functionally impairing.

• Plurality may be better characterized and understood in terms of neurodiversity and Mad Studies. " an "multiplicity system." Like the "alters" in DID, the "system members" within multiplicity systems "switch" and take turns "fronting," or interacting, with the outside world. But unlike those with DID, many who experience an internal life within a multiplicity system are fully aware of the existence of other members (and therefore use "we" as a preferred pronoun), find the experience more affirming than distressing, and don't typically see themselves as having a mental disorder (they often consider DID as a subset of multiplicity). Rather than experiencing them as "personalities" or "identities" that are mere parts of a "true" whole needing integration, they place their internal life under the umbrella of neurodiversity, often even viewing their system members as "full-fledged people" to the point of having individual rights.^"

"The diversity of the multiplicity experience also tells us that plurality can sometimes be enacted through conscious effort rather than unconsciously as a result of trauma (in the plural community, "non-traumagenic" plurality is sometimes described as "endogenic") and need not be associated with functional impairment or distress so that it shouldn't be equated with a mental disorder the way it is with DID. On the contrary, many find their "functional multiplicity" not only helpful in terms of mental health but wholly satisfying, as if they've finally found a self-concept that meshes with their internal experience. In that sense, multiplicity can be thought of as similar to gender identity—with overlap between multiplicity and gender dysphoria14—representing nothing short of a revolt against the limiting confines of how society defines identity. So it is that new paradigms of neurodiversity, Mad Studies, and self-advocacy activism are trying to tear down the conservative walls of traditional psychiatry and psychology."

There are multiple times were a clear distinction is made. Kuia34 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your quotes literally say that multiplicity includes DID. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I keep on repeating this but I'll repeat it again.

I'm not saying that what I'm say is that even though people with DID are apart of the multiplicity subculture it is still distinct from regular online DID communities . Hence things related to the general DID community are not apart of the subculture.

You can add stuff relating to DID as long as it's within the context of the subculture but most of the articles cited relating to DID are about the general online DID communityKuia34 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless your able to find a source that sates that the general DID community is the same as the multiplicty culture please remove the stuff relating to the general DID community. For future references if you want to add stuff relating to DID it has to be within the context of the subculture. Kuia34 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a preponderance of sources describing overlap/inclusion and an absence of sources saying there exists two distinct and separate online communities. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the source of contention on "criticism & controversy" sections come from essays. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kuia34:

You are bludgeoning this conversation to the point where I am not really sure what your issue is anymore. You claim that DID does not belong in a multiplicity article, yet you also state that DID is a subset of multiplicity. The article is explicitly about "online communities of people that say they have multiple personality". It is impossible to know who has and hasn't DID. Sources describe friction within due to feeling like they need to have a diagnosis, source 1 studies an online community and describes the word multiplicity emerging as an umbrella term to fulfill this issue. There is a sentence already on the page differentiating the two:

Online multiplicity communities may embrace all above types of expressions under the multiplicity label, or instead only cater to those experiencing dissociative disorders

, which is sourced in P.T. I checked. Speaking of that, I have corrected the inline citations you pointed out, since indeed, they did not correspond to the sentence. Kate the mochii (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that DID doesn't belong in the article I'm saying that stuff related to DID that isn't in reference to the subculture isn't supposed to be here. That's the whole point of a subculture as defined by the oxford english dictionary

"a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture."

While the multiplicity culture does include various communities within it the culutre itself has beliefs that are distinct from various other groups including the broader DID community. Those multiple articles make the distinction multiple times including the P.T article . What your focusing on is "DID is within the multiplicity community" while ignoring what I'm saying : " Yes while DID and other communities are within the multiplicity subculture the overarching culture shares beliefs that differentiate from something like the broad DID community" Hence why articles relating to the Broad DID are not fit to be in this article .

On to my second point

"Online multiplicity communities may embrace all above types of expressions under the multiplicity label, or instead only cater to those experiencing dissociative disorders"

can you please quote the lines from the P.T article that your using as a source pls n ty Kuia34 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii Kuia34 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that DID doesn't belong in the article I'm saying that stuff related to DID that isn't in reference to the subculture isn't supposed to be here. That's the whole point of a subculture as defined by the oxford english dictionary

The source here about DID are about or study the online DID community, which shares jargon like "alter" (subcultural trait), with non-medicalized multiplicity communities and tulpa communities. Kate the mochii (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough "alter" is one of the few jargons that DID multiples don't share with the non-medicalized members. Though they do share a lot of other jargon. In most cases multiples(including more often in the non-DID sources from what I can see at least) would just describe it as having multiple people/identities sharing a body. The vice source even says explicitly they don't see system members as alters, the psychology today source says *like the "alters" in DID, the "system members" within multiplicity systems* implying they do things like alters but are "system members". System is a shared jargon though Seteleechete (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Alter isn't shared jargon though.... and that's definitely not one of the subcultural traits Kuia34 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Alter isn't shared jargon though

Alter is usually a term used by traumagenic systems, such as those with DID, OSDD-1, UDD/USDD, and DDNOS. Non-traumagenic systems may use it, but its more commonly used in these areas.

— https://multiplicity.fandom.com/wiki/Alter At the very least, it has a page on multiplicity wiki (closed wiki, about the multiplicity subculture). I am sure pretty much any multiplicity resource you can look up defines alter.

that's definitely not one of the subcultural traits

From Subculture#Identifying:

Dick Hebdige writes that members of a subculture often signal their membership through a distinctive and symbolic use of style, which includes fashions, mannerisms, and argot.

Kate the mochii (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. What your fandom wiki shows is that it's primarily used by people with DID , OSDD-1 , UDD/USDD and DDNOS and as other sources have shown that's not the term that's used by everyone in the subculture as such the term "alter" cannot be a defining subcultural trait. Not to mention "argot" is informal language/slang the term "alter" isn't really informal as it's used in official psychiatry .

2. So what should be the defining trait for this subculture well let's look at the sources that talk about multiplicity that are in this article so far and how they distinguish it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202302/enacted-identities-multiplicity-plurality-and-tulpamancy :

1. • Multiplicity, plurality, and tulpamancy bring a newfound awareness to the fact that many people experience a non-unitary self.
   • Unlike dissociative identity disorder, these plural experiences are often not distressing or functionally impairing.
   • Plurality may be better characterized and understood in terms of neurodiversity and Mad Studies. https://i.ibb.co/ZYzL7dc/Screenshot-2023-07-03-9-16-45-PM.png (screenshot of were this is taken from)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468408/
With the increasing popularity and spread of the Internet, various forms of self-organized support groups have emerged. Multiplicity is a relatively new concept that encompasses people who consider themselves multiple by nature; that is, they have a group of individual selves who share the same body. It can be concluded that multiplicity is a label and a self-organized support group for people with severe identity disturbances, in some cases with symptoms of dissociative disorders. Further research is needed to assess clinically the underlying motivations, functionality and long-term changes in individuals who consider themselves multiple.// Most systems do not report amnesic barriers or recall traumatic events, and they insist that their multiplicity is something they were born with. Many of them call this healthy or a natural state of identity.// People who identify themselves as “multiple” have a system of multiple or alternative, selves, that share the same physical body. This is the first study to explore the phenomenon of multiplicity by assessing the experiences of people who identify themselves as “multiple.”

https://www.lycoming.edu/schemata/pdfs/Sullivan.pdf (also on a side not this is a student essay not a research paper https://www.lycoming.edu/schemata/psychology.aspx I'm not really sure if student essays are allowed as sources would someone look into that) :

With the popularization of the Internet within the last twenty years, and its increasing use as a forum for nameless individuals to voice thoughts they would otherwise keep private, many groups have risen out of anonymity. Utilizing various blogging platforms and social media, these fringe groups are attempting to normalize their behavior by commiserating with similar individuals. One such group calls themselves “multiple systems” or “plural people.”1 According to Astraea’s Web (2007), an online collection of information regarding this mental state, multiplicity is defined as “Two or more independent people who use the same body; the experience of sharing the body with others.” Essentially, in a similar way that the majority of people experience a single consciousness in their single body, a multiple system experiences at least one other additional, complete, and independent consciousness who may or may not share control of the physical body. It differs from the traditional definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder in that the individual insists they are consciously aware of the world while their other identities are present, or “fronting” (DSM-IV, 2006; Astraea’s, 2007)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9120276/In terms of differentiating between the terms DID and multiplicity, DID is associated with high levels of distress and reduced functioning within most diagnostic conceptualisations (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). However, many people with multiplicity function well in terms of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment (Ribáry et al., 2017), and appreciate the value of their multiple selves as a coping response to adversity and relational traumas (e.g. Parry et al., 2018a, b). The absence of distress experienced by systems identifying as multiple may suggest that DID and multiplicity vary in experience, and the dominance of DID in research highlights a fundamental limitation in the understanding of multiplicity (Okano, In Press; Trifu, 2019). On the other hand, an assumption of a lack of distress and impairment in functioning could point to a further lack of understanding in the experience of multiplicity (Hacohen et al., 2019; Sagan, 2019), particularly in relation to distress associated with stigma. Overall, the paucity of research surrounding multiplicity with people with lived experience, especially during adolescence and emerging adulthood, could alienate the multiplicity community, leading to important gaps in the scientific and humanitarian understanding of how systems of people can coexist together.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vdxgw9/when-multiple-personalities-are-not-a-disorder-400What she found were words like system and multiple and fronting—the vocabulary of the multiplicity community, a group that formed during the mailing lists of the 1980s. These multiples, as they call themselves, see themselves as healthy and empowered rather than disordered and "inherently pathological," as Falah says. And they desperately want the rest of the world to see them that way, too. Their vocabulary is extensive, but the most basic concepts are these: A "multiplicity system" refers to the group within the body itself (i.e., "I'm part of a multiplicity system"). The system might consist of two people, or it might consist of 200. The "outer world" is this physical plane that we're all stumbling around in, while "inner worlds" are the subjective realms where their system members spend time when they're not "fronting," or running the body in the outer world. When I speak to Falah, she is fronting, not Lark. 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.
https://aeon.co/ideas/what-we-can-learn-about-respect-and-identity-from-plurals A plural is a human being who says things like: ‘I’m one of many people inside my head.’ Although they are quite rare (it’s impossible to say how rare), plurals are increasingly visible on social media and in the occasional popular media article. At present, there is a handbook online about how to respond to a co-worker’s ‘coming out’ (as the document puts it) as plural. You might think you’ve heard of plurals if you’ve heard of dissociative identity disorder (DID), because, like plurals, people with DID experience themselves as being psychologically multiple. But many plurals don’t meet the diagnostic criteria for DID. Often, this is because they don’t find their plurality per se to be distressing or impairing. In other cases, it’s because they don’t meet the amnesia criterion for DID, since the multiple beings that plurals experience as being inside them can share experiences or communicate to each other about their experiences. Conversely, most people with DID aren’t plurals. Plurals don’t just feel as though they are psychologically multiple – they believe that they are. And they take each of these psychological beings, inhabiting one shared body, to be a full person: let’s call each of them a personp, where the little ‘p’ stands for ‘part of one human being’. As one personp puts it: ‘You presume that there’s a “real person” underneath all of us who’s conjuring up “imaginary friends”. No, we’re just people, thanks.’
--// As you can see the way the multiplicity is defined there appears to be clear consistent way it distinguishes itself from other experinces that being:
• Lack of impairment
• The belief that each personaity is it's own indivual person
• The belief that having multiple personalities isn't a disorder and can be healthy even normal

Kuia34 (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

By consensus on the previous talk page, there are few sources on the ailment "multiplicity" which fall under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). And those that do are ALL syntheses of patient interviews. As you can remember, source 1 says the topic is under-researched, even as recently as 2017. The related article Dissociative Identity Disorder says DID remains a "controversial diagnosis". If DID is a "controversial diagnosis", then what does that make of multiplicity, as a medical ailment, or at least as "something that you are born with". That's why it does not make sense to talk in absolute terms about multiplicity. Talking in absolute terms about multiplicity, let alone quoting sources indiscriminately to make a point leads to saying things like "the concept of multiplicity started with magnetizers in the 1900s, who were surprised that they gave a person multiple personalities".

That's also why those sources can be more used more flexibly in an article about the online subculture, where assertions about "multiplicity" are limited only to third-parties' observations, and where accounts are allowed to contradict. Also sources here are bounded by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is less stringent than Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Kate the mochii (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is only for articles deemed to be medical and previous talk page consensus has shown that the Multiplicity(psychology) article was not medical Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) . So none of the sources on that article were held to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) . Multiplicity is not an official medical diagnosis and this page is about a culture of people and like I mentioned before shared beliefs are what make a subculture a subculture....

"multiplicity" are limited only to third-parties' observations, and where accounts are allowed to contradict. Also sources here are bounded by Wikipedia:Reliable sources,

Most of the sources I quoted were third party observation and they still remained consistent in how they defined the multiplicity subculture.(Not to mention you just tried to quote a wiki fandom page as your source...) We are not here to give some medical/psychological explaination as to what these people are experiencing rather to talk about the group of people and to do that we must define what that group of people is and the sources I quoted above all give clear and consistent definitions of the multiplicity subculture.

"the concept of multiplicity started with magnetizers in the 1900s, who were surprised that they gave a person multiple personalities".

I don't know what else you want me to say that's the history of the psychological concept. Kuia34 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

talk page consensus has shown that the Multiplicity(psychology) article was not medical

That was said in relation to this split article here. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion that was came to was that indivual claims that required Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) were to be held to that standard but the page itself is not held to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) . Also I guess we have come to an agreement as to how to define the multiplicty subculture. Kuia34 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kate the mochii Have we come to a conclusion that the multipicity subculture can be defined as group of people with :

• Lack of impairment

• The belief that each personaity is it's own indivual person

• The belief that having multiple personalities isn't a disorder and can be healthy even normal

or are we still discussing this Kuia34 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the first and third bullet points, since obviously, multiplicity communities don't "exclude" people with DID: in fact it is seen as a status symbol (eg. input article) and source 1 talks about impairment yet its title is precisely "Multiplicity: ... [online community]". Kate the mochii (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1. People with DID that are within the subculture identify themselves with the concept of "functional multiplicty" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468749921000570) rather than the intergrative approach to DID.

2. The input article is not about this subculture it's about DID communities and as we have shown multiplicity differantiates itself from broader DID communities.(and it doesn't even mention multiplicty or plurality once)

3. Can you please quote were in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468408/ it talks about impairment. Kuia34 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

oh wait my bad i thought the input article was the teenvogue article i didn't notice you were talking about this article https://www.inverse.com/input/culture/dissociative-identity-disorder-did-tiktok-influencers-multiple-personalities . I think that article is a good example of DID more within the context of the subculture. Kuia34 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

An appeal to better sources

While there is no consensus on Vice and reliability, I am a tad worried about leaning on the primary source nature of it. It's not that we should remove it, I don't think anyway, but we should consider finding something else if possible. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have any other suggestions as to what we should use? Kuia34 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is always a possibility. This is a pop culture article, which is traditionally the field in which Vice reports, so reliability/undue has not me too worried. Kate the mochii (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)