Hi Jason, Nik, and Others, First I am sorry for my delay in replying to this thread. The reason has in part to do with how complex Dissociative Identity Disorder is, couple to the fact that I have not seen Moon Knight, and lacked the background knowledge necessary to offer commentary. It seems my life will continue to require attention (my psychotherapy integration conference is next weekend), so I do not think I can devote the time to this it deserves and so I have still not explored Moon Knight. Let me offer some potentially grounding thoughts here that align with Nik’s. First, yes, I have seen someone with DID. And consistent with the basic trauma theory, she had been brutally abused for years. I briefly mention her in the opening of this blog on a concept I developed called Pervasive Adult Developmental Disorder<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201508/pervasive-adult-developmental-disorder>. Second, we can start with one of the most interesting and basic features of subjective experience, which pertains to the way it is both singular and multiple. As I note in this blog on the self, this is the “one – many” dynamic.<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-or-many-selves> On the side of oneness, most typical human persons have a sense of a singular continuous identity. Meaning there is a strong sense of continuity of identity in consciousness through life. That is, across time points a, b, and c, I experience myself to be the same identity. This is true despite disruptions in actual continuity (e.g., I go to sleep and my identity essentially disappears and then comes back on line), and across long spans of time when I change dramatically (i.e., consider myself now as opposed to myself at 10). It also is the case that the witness function that forms the epistemic portal for my perspective on the world and the egoic narrator are joined and together “collaborate” to make me to be a singular human person. All of this is connected to the iQuad Coin’s core symbol, which is the H rotated I frame for Human Identity. [cid:image001.png@01D8509B.72EE9160] Now let’s consider normative experiences of multiplicity. I see the world and feel differently in the world depending on my mood, my role, and my situation. I am different as a father, as a lover, as a son, as a professor. I am different when I am hungry as opposed to sated. I am different in my relationships such that my felt sense of being with a person can shift dramatically depending on the tone or whether we are in conflict. I am even more different under certain circumstances, like taking mind-altering substances. Despite the remarkable shifts, these differences typically are not so strong that they break the sense of identity as continuity of self across time. However, there are fairly common instances when the identity continuity sense is broken. Clinically, we see derealization as being a felt sense that one’s contact with reality is lost and thus the self-world gripping is shifted such that it does not feel the world is real. We also see depersonalization when the self feels to lose the identity and one no longer feels like the person they normally experience themselves to be. Many people will report this in trauma, for example. Consider comments like, “It felt like it was a dream” or “It felt like it was happening to someone else”. All of this is background to start to even frame, yet alone understand DID. This shows that we can see breaks in the identity continuity experience. What is striking about DID is the emergence of a second identity, that gets epistemically organized and has a sense of continuity that is separate from the “host”. This definitely happens. Exactly how is unclear, but the trauma frame for DID does appear central. In essence, the idea is that intense trauma over time creates a depersonalized, derealized “identity vacuum” that can then, in some extreme cases, be filled by a completely different “mode”. And that mode somehow carries a different epistemic organizing signature, such that it can come online and the other typical identity remains “asleep” (i.e., there is a psychic epistemic wall that separates the two) . Perhaps we can consider it a kind of self-hypnosis coupled to a (spontaneous) generation of a new role? For now, that is the basic description I can offer. I can also share another personal layer. As those who know me well know, I actually have worked to cultivate a separate identity within me. This is a function of 25+ years of “thinking,” which is a euphemism for smoking weed and being transformed into a creative exploratory metaphorical mindset that enables me to make new associations that my normal “Regular Gregg” does not make (i.e., hence when I say “It took a lot of grass to grow the garden”). Over the years, this mode has become instantiated and has developed different ways of thinking, talking, feeling and relating, such that I refer to the thinking mode as “Meta Gregg”. In terms of its structural sensibility, the whole process can definitely be framed as a metamodern thing, and Meta Gregg is definitely a “sincere ironic” entity. Of course, this is not a case of DID precisely because it is not dissociated, but rather intentionally cultivated and there is continuity of memory and cross talk. However, it has developed to the point where I will use separate pronouns in the right (and safe) context (e.g., “I am fine with that, but I am not sure Meta Gregg will be ok with it”). Thus, there genuinely are some real parallels. (It is not a stretch for me to say my body houses two person-identity modes that are clear, and distinct). Bottom line is that the Human Identity Function in both its singular and multiple forms is a fascinating thing to reflect on. Thanks for raising this issue. Sorry I can’t comment on Moon Knight, but hopefully this affords some useful framing. Best, Gregg From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of nysa71 Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 9:28 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ToK: DID, Moon Knight, and the ToK CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ________________________________ Thanks Nicholas, You wrote: "Jason, I haven't seen this show but am well aware of the poor characterization of DID chronically and historically in most film/media, with a few exceptions. Such mischaracterization is dangerous to our youth and for those more emotionally vulnerable it has led to an increase in claiming they have DID, but of course their characterizations are based on the media and they come off ass malingering. They are malingering, but in a broken search for identity that ironically mirrors DID more closely than their own presentations of it. I think this speaks to the issue of misunderstanding DID at the cultural level." Me: That's why I think it's important for psychologists to see these shows and respond to them, so that the public can stay properly educated on such matters. The show's creators did hire consultants to better depict DID, and they seem to have done a decent job in several regards, (e.g., the character with DID is anything but threatening...well, with the exception of a threat to the "bad guys"). They do seem to incorporate elements of what seem like schizophrenia, which could be problematic, but could be considered more of having to do with the story's fantastical/mythical aspects. The two models you described are interesting, though pragmatically-speaking, it seems like there's mostly a distinction without much of a difference. It would be interesting to see which model the show implies. It seems like the former. The theory behind IFS therapy seems very interesting, as well. Come to think of it, it seems there's an opportunity to use this show as a means to further educate the public on these matters. When it comes to DID, the public could sure use it, it would seem. Would love to hear Gregg's thoughts on all this, as well. Have a good one, Jason Bessey On Sunday, April 3, 2022, 09:37:23 AM EDT, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ________________________________ Jason, I haven't seen this show but am well aware of the poor characterization of DID chronically and historically in most film/media, with a few exceptions. Such mischarachterization is dangerous to our youth and for those more emotionally vulnerable it has led to an increase in claiming they have DID, but of course their characterizations are based on the media and they come off ass malingering. They are malingering, but in a broken search for identity that ironically mirrors DID more closely than their own presentations of it. I think this speaks to the issue of misunderstanding DID at the cultural level. I won't speak for Gregg, though I have heard him say he's treated at least one client who likely had DID, I can't say I've seen it fir sure, but I have seen several clients who were so fractured that they related to themselves as multiple personalities, often taking on mytho-poetic identities (e.g., one client had a regime of alters he called "the order"). That sort of identity is not inconsistent with accounts of DID but there is large disagreement in many areas in psychotherapy and psychology over whether or not DID is even real. 2 models for it have emerged- the traumagenic model posits that as a result of highly traumatic experience(s) that the self dissociates and fractures (like an extreme repression and compatmentalization of an entire aspect of your life and personality). The fantasy model hinges on the construct of fantasy proneness, which should not be confused with faking/malingering. This model posits that so-called DID indivudals don't actually have fragmented selves but are so prone to dissociative tendencies and "fantasy" that they effectively create that world to live in because it provides a sort of cushion between them and reality. My experience with clients I would attribute to the latter, though without some even relative trauma, neither model would seem to explain the phenomenon, as they both serve the same function despite different ontological of the disorder. Since the 80's a form of therapy called internal family systems emerged, IFS. Which treats the individual as a set of neural substrates that effectively amount to one personality made up of many parts, with a core Self that is not a part. I have used this model increasingly in my clinical work with significant effectiveness (this is a model used with DID patients but was originally developed working with adolescent bulemics, it can work for anyone). The science that IFS uses to explain the existence of seemingly separate parts with individual agencies and perhaps free will that are connected through the core self (which would correspond with pure awareness/observing self in ACT) is generally consistent, but not properly explanative for us to say we are working with different beings versus relatively separate entities of the psyche. Gregg and I will be having a talk on IFS and ToK in the coming weeks that should address your questions along these lines. I would encourage you to look at IFS as a more proper guide to understanding DID in a sense that won't overstate the ontology of the phenomenon. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, 9:06 PM nysa71 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ________________________________ Hello ToK Society, As some of you may be aware, Disney+ just aired its first episode of a new six-part MCU series, "Moon Knight", based on the Marvel comic character. This hero (or anti-hero?) is interesting because he has Dissociative Identity Disorder. And since Hollywood hasn't exactly had a pristine track record on depicting characters with this particular disorder, I was curious to read of a psychology perspective on how DID was depicted in the show thus far, for those who may have seen it. What did they get right? What did they get wrong? And it leads me to a more general question.... How would Dissociative Identity Disorder be interpreted within the ToK framework? ~Jason Bessey ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1