Skeptics
This part of the F.A.Q is for skeptics, both spiritual and not, who may have reservations about plurality, specifically endogenic plurality.
Question: How can endogenic systems form without trauma?
Honestly, psychology does not have an answer on this currently. We know non-traumagenic, identities, dissociative states switching, and systems are possible, and have been documented in academia, but there are (at the time of writing this) no conclusive answers as to what allows a non-traumagenic system to form.
Question: Do endogenic systems actually believe they share their brain with multiple people?
Yes. Although not physically independent of one body, endogenic systems do believe the people they share their brain with are as real and legitimate as any other group of people. Most do not see their system members as imaginary or as aspects of their personality, but as rounded individuals like any other person.
Question: What distinguishes this from schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is a severe psychotic disorder rooted in a failure to distinguish objective reality, and has nothing to do with multiple identities or people (Parekh, 2017). Schizophrenia often presents with delusional thinking and external hallucinations involving various senses (tactile, visual, etc.) that are not discerned from objective reality, along with cognitive and behavioral abnormalities or deficits (Parekh, 2017). In contrast, plurality lies on the dissociative spectrum, and while subjective and internal perceptions may be altered or change from system member to system member, most who experience plurality still perceive objective reality. Schizophrenia and other schizo-spectrum disorders are at their core a disturbance of the minimal self and one's existential foundation, whereas plurality is a disturbance of the narrative self and one's personal identity (Humpston, 2017). Schizophrenia usually begins near the late teens or twenties, whereas endogenic plurality can appear at any age or from young childhood, and unlike endogenic plurality, schizophrenia often gets worse without treatment.
Although uncommon, a plural system could be diagnosed with schizophrenia, or any other psychotic disorder. This would not invalidate their plurality, nor imply that other plural systems inherently suffer from psychotic disorders.
Question: What distinguishes this from malingered or factitious dissociative identity disorder?
Those who malinger dissociative identity disorder usually do so in order to avoid the unpleasant realities of their lives or gain something financially or medically, such as SSI benefits or the attention of doctors (Thomas, 2001). This may be a sign of factitious disorder, a mental disorder in which a person pretends to be physically or mentally ill for themselves or others in order to be viewed as sick treated as a patient. In contrast, since being endogenic is an origin type that usually means a system was not formed from trauma and thus usually doesn't need specialized help, it is unlikely that someone would claim to be an origin that rarely sees treatment or gets access to DID/OSDD only groups, especially since being endogenic by itself is not a diagnosis. Outside of origins, legitimately having any dissociative disorder tends to cause some level of difficulty and hardship for those diagnosed or suffering with one, and a person specifically voicing their apathy or pleasure in having one (not self-acceptance or loving positive aspects of their condition, but actually enjoying or being content with the distressing dissociation, trauma, and blackouts that come with it) would raise suspicion (Thomas, 2001).
Question: If endogenic plurality is a real and ordinary experience, why haven't more scientists taken interest in it?
Stigma, as well as most of the focus being on DID and trauma-related dissociation. Trauma-related dissociation tends to catch the attention of psychologists more than non-traumagenic dissociation due to its effects on a person's functioning and quality of life. Endogenic systems tend to function well without psychological intervention, and without many endogenics catching the eye of psychologists, the systems that could be studied fly under the radar. There is a stigma against the idea of multiple identities sharing a body together no matter their origin, with many voicing their disbelief in the condition despite evidence for its existence. It's only been recently that the concept of endogenic plurality as anything more than an anomaly has even appeared in the public eye, so chances are that it may be a while before psychologists seriously consider it and start doing studies.
Question: Are endogenic systems and traumagenic systems the same thing?
No, they are not. While they do share many similarities, endogenic plurality generally does not cause distress and severe dissociation associated with trauma, while traumagenic systems may struggle with distress and severe dissociation. Endogenic systems usually do not require treatment for dissociation caused by trauma, while traumagenic systems often need treatment for dissociation and traumatic memories. Both do deserve respect and the right to be treated as people, but traumagenic systems may need more help to function in this world. They are similar, but different in some very important aspects.
Question: Isn't this something that originated on social media sites?
No. Even though plurality and the term "headmates" have become well known recently from various media sites, the concept of being naturally plural originated before then, and people were talking about then too.
Question: Isn't this encouraging harmful self-diagnosis?
Absolutely not. Being an endogenic system means that someone is plural without trauma being a factor, and is not a diagnosis anywhere in the DSM-5. It is a state of being, a kind of condition, but not something someone can diagnose another person with. Claiming an endogenous origin does not automatically mean that someone is claiming to have self-diagnosed medical conditions, such as DID or OSDD.
Question: Doesn't "system" mean DID? Aren't endogenics claiming to have DID as a result?
The word "system" has been circulated and used in the wider plural community since at least the late nineties, even flowing into communities such as the tulpamancy community, and has never solely been the property of DID systems, having been used in other psychological concepts such as Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy. Additionally the word itself was never coined specifically for the discussion of DID or dissociative disorders, having been a general word to describe collections of objects (like the 'solar system') for centuries. It would be pretty unusual for someone to get possessive of a word always used by the mainstream public!
When someone says they are an endogenic system, typically they are saying that they are a plural system that did not originate from trauma, and they are using "system" to refer to the entire collection of headmates.
Question: Isn't this just a way for teenagers and young adults to try and "collect" their favorite kintypes/fictional characters/etc.?
While it might seem that way on the surface, rest assured that the variance you see in a system is usually a result of each headmate being a different individual and having a different personal identity due to the way they formed. Not all systems will have wildly differing members, but those that do are not automatically trying to "collect" them all or one-up other members. Some communities centered around identity (kin, therian, trans, etc.) may have admins or members who worry about these systems participating due to the wide variety in headmates they may present with, but if they are abiding by the rules and behaving appropriately there shouldn't be an issue.
Question: Won't this prevent people from getting help for other ailments disguised as plurality?
It shouldn't. While every system may have their reasons for accepting or refusing medical or mental health at one time or another, and some people may feel more comfortable asking for help for certain problems, avoiding help simply because one is endogenic is not healthy, and the majority of plural systems will visit doctors when it is appropriate. As endogenic plurality is a condition that often arises in childhood and continues in adulthood with a fairly typical presentation (or less commonly, arises in adulthood from non-traumagenic reasons), the idea that there is a malignant physical condition causing endogenic plurality is unfounded. Even those who discover their plurality as an adult may question it and check in with a mental health professional to be safe, and those who are experiencing significant distress, unwanted dissociation or amnesia from their plurality should (and often do) check in with a mental health professional.
Question: Isn't this just roleplay taken too far?
Not at all. There is a difference between a person willingly getting into character for a game or show, and a person who continuously has another person in their head talking to them, adding input, and controlling their body for months and years on end. Roleplay is typically done with the intent of acting out a scenario or pretending to be another person or entity for fun or attention, whereas being endogenic is simply what one is, and doesn't involve much more than expressing one's plurality. Some systems may distinguish their system members by signing and some may talk about what goes on in their headspaces, but this is a far cry from the expressive, dramatic and fantastical forms of roleplay seen from many roleplayers. In addition, plurality often comes with additional life-altering experiences (like co-communication, switching, dream encounters, etc.) and changes (learning to manage disagreements, delegating chores, etc.) that roleplayers never claim. Some headmates of some systems may take an interest in roleplay, but after they are done pretending they are back to being themselves as a member of the system.
In short, roleplayers are temporarily and purposefully acting out a role divorced from reality, whereas endogenic systems are emphasizing that they are more-than-one in reality and truly live this way. Roleplay is accepted by many as a standard thing people do, while being plural is considered "abnormal" and transgressive by many. Anyone who mixed up the two would soon learn the difference.
Question: Isn't endogenic plurality explained better by other conditions?
What would you call a (largely) non-pathological and non-distressing kind of condition in which two or more people share a brain, can sometimes alternate physical control of a body, and may experience brief episodes of dissociation?
Most mental illnesses are eliminated immediately due to "distress" being a factor in diagnosis, and while it may be tempting to explain away endogenic plurality as imagination gone wild, in many cases of endogenic plurality people do not ask to be plural or try to make themselves plural. They may be born that way, predisposed or somehow inclined to form headmates, but they typically do not choose it, nor is it something that can be turned off at will. Endogenic plurality seems to make the most sense for many, especially those who have identified themselves as endogenic for years and years.
Question: Why not integrate and be normal?
There is no need to try and fix what appears to be a harmless neurotype or spirituality if no one is distressed or harmed by it. Additionally, integration as a treatment appears to have a low sucess rate, and even lower if the system in question is not interested in integrating. In a few cases, there are systems who cannot integrate at all for whatever reason, and so for most endogenic systems treatment is like a pipe dream that they never wanted.
Question: Why do some endogenic systems get disgruntled when I ask them for proof of this concept?
This is because you are asking for proof of their existence as well, something that many people do not have to prove in order to be accepted as people but endogenic systems are asked to provide, sometimes even in the absence of proof for related concepts, such as psychological proof of how human consciousness works. This does not excuse unusually hostile or violent behavior on the part of the system, but this does explain why some may respond to the idea of "proof" negatively.
Question: How can you know you didn't experience trauma, if dissociative amnesia can play a part?
While dissociative amnesia can cloud or outright erase some memories of trauma and cause the initial appearance of being an endogenic system, after a while this may fade as the system gets to know itself more, and realizes that trauma did play an active part in shaping their system, revealing their true nature. However, it would be unusual for this to continue on for years or even decades, through stressors and life changes, and never reveal the pathological dissociation or memory loss typical in DID or OSDD-1 cases. Other systems may actively recall a large portion of their childhood and know that trauma didn't play a part, and some may know there was trauma involved but understand it didn't play a role in creating the system. There are even endogenic systems who remember being plural before any major trauma occurred!
Even regardless of trauma, the fact that there are certain experience differences (such as a lack of impactful negative dissociation) and differing views on plurality imply that there's something going on that separates endogenic (and non-traumagenic) plurality from other forms of plurality.
Question: How is this possible spiritually?
As we have nothing factually proven about the spiritual, any way you can imagine. Some systems may view themselves as having more than one soul inside of them, while others may see themselves as possessing one soul but neurologically predisposed to be multiple people and thus endogenic. Others may not care or hold any hard beliefs one way or the other.
Question: Is this something that should be treated spiritually (through exorcisms, faith healings, etc.)?
No. It can actually be harmful to try and treat any form of plurality as a spiritual failing, or attempt to exorcise a plural system. These techniques do not work, and may negatively impact a system's functioning and view of themselves.
Question: Isn't this harmful mentally?
Not so. This is based on the assumption that something's inherently wrong with being plural or that being plural is a sign of deeper cognitive and mental issues most of the time, when there is no reason to conclude that this is the case. Neurodivergence isn't always a problem that must be treated. As long as an endogenic system can get their needs met and is happy the way they are, there shouldn't be any deeper problems.
Question: Do endogenic systems want to take over the DID/OSDD community?
No. Most endogenic systems wish to exist in piece and harmony with the other plural communities. While of course mistakes do happen, and some systems may end up in the wrong group by mistake, redirection is usually all it takes to set things right. Most endogenic systems understand they do not have DID or OSDD, and do not want access to these specialized communities. Rarely an endogenic system may be diagnosed with DID or OSDD due to "technically" fitting the criteria at the time (ex. an endogenic system that is struggling with communication but lacks posttraumatic symptoms and distressing dissociation may still be diagnosed with OSDD due to an inability to function properly without communication) and feel they should have access to those groups due to their diagnosis. Similar situations have been documented before in individuals undergoing trance possession, and it is not unlikely that this could also happen to some endogenic systems (Delmonte et al., 2015). However, these are rare cases and most endogenic systems are not diagnosed with DID/OSDD and do not want to take over the specialized DID/OSDD communities.
Question: How can a system with more than a hundred members function without serious issues?
In much the same way any other group with rules and goals can navigate and function in the world. If everyone in the system can follow the rules, or share the same goals the likelihood of serious issues impacting functioning is low. Not all headmates need to use the body regularly, and so you may encounter systems who have a large amount of members but only a few are ever seen most of the time. Memory sharing and co-communication can prevent disorientation when someone is passing on responsibilities to a new headmate, and pre-planning for events and life needs can ensure that life continues on smoothly with another person at the wheel.
Question: Wouldn't an endogenic system always run into internal arguments and fights?
Not necessarily. Internal arguments or disagreements may pop up from time to time (as with any other group of people) but they can be sorted out, and are often taken care of once a system sets up a way of managing them. In cases where this is happening more often than not and seriously stressing out the system or impairing functioning, this may indicate that there are deeper issues within the system that need to be addressed.
Question: Do all endogenic systems hold the same beliefs about plurality, or topics outside of it?
No. The community is not a monolith, and while there may be shared or prominent beliefs held here and there, generally each system and the people within it will have their own views and ideas on a wide range of topics. Thus if you meet one system you don't get along with or disagree with, it's not fair to generalize and assume all systems (or their members) will feel the same way. There's no one stereotype or belief all systems adhere to, we're all individuals!
Question: Are endogenic systems hiding their trauma history?
Not really. Some systems may be trying to figure themselves out and may identify as endogenic for a time before realizing they have trauma, but others are endogenic regardless. While some endogenic systems admit that they have had trauma, their trauma is not the cause of their plurality, and they are not obliged to divulge any information about what they've been through to strangers.
Question: Why are you telling me all of this?
Because it is important for people to realize that endogenic plurality is a real and serious phenomena that some experience. It is important for people to understand what endogenic systems need (acceptance and understanding) and what they don't need (invasive treatments aimed at curing a non-pathological form of neurodivergence), and it is important for others who are still discovering or may not be completely aware of their plurality, and want to figure out what's going on with them.
Honestly, psychology does not have an answer on this currently. We know non-traumagenic, identities, dissociative states switching, and systems are possible, and have been documented in academia, but there are (at the time of writing this) no conclusive answers as to what allows a non-traumagenic system to form.
Question: Do endogenic systems actually believe they share their brain with multiple people?
Yes. Although not physically independent of one body, endogenic systems do believe the people they share their brain with are as real and legitimate as any other group of people. Most do not see their system members as imaginary or as aspects of their personality, but as rounded individuals like any other person.
Question: What distinguishes this from schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is a severe psychotic disorder rooted in a failure to distinguish objective reality, and has nothing to do with multiple identities or people (Parekh, 2017). Schizophrenia often presents with delusional thinking and external hallucinations involving various senses (tactile, visual, etc.) that are not discerned from objective reality, along with cognitive and behavioral abnormalities or deficits (Parekh, 2017). In contrast, plurality lies on the dissociative spectrum, and while subjective and internal perceptions may be altered or change from system member to system member, most who experience plurality still perceive objective reality. Schizophrenia and other schizo-spectrum disorders are at their core a disturbance of the minimal self and one's existential foundation, whereas plurality is a disturbance of the narrative self and one's personal identity (Humpston, 2017). Schizophrenia usually begins near the late teens or twenties, whereas endogenic plurality can appear at any age or from young childhood, and unlike endogenic plurality, schizophrenia often gets worse without treatment.
Although uncommon, a plural system could be diagnosed with schizophrenia, or any other psychotic disorder. This would not invalidate their plurality, nor imply that other plural systems inherently suffer from psychotic disorders.
Question: What distinguishes this from malingered or factitious dissociative identity disorder?
Those who malinger dissociative identity disorder usually do so in order to avoid the unpleasant realities of their lives or gain something financially or medically, such as SSI benefits or the attention of doctors (Thomas, 2001). This may be a sign of factitious disorder, a mental disorder in which a person pretends to be physically or mentally ill for themselves or others in order to be viewed as sick treated as a patient. In contrast, since being endogenic is an origin type that usually means a system was not formed from trauma and thus usually doesn't need specialized help, it is unlikely that someone would claim to be an origin that rarely sees treatment or gets access to DID/OSDD only groups, especially since being endogenic by itself is not a diagnosis. Outside of origins, legitimately having any dissociative disorder tends to cause some level of difficulty and hardship for those diagnosed or suffering with one, and a person specifically voicing their apathy or pleasure in having one (not self-acceptance or loving positive aspects of their condition, but actually enjoying or being content with the distressing dissociation, trauma, and blackouts that come with it) would raise suspicion (Thomas, 2001).
Question: If endogenic plurality is a real and ordinary experience, why haven't more scientists taken interest in it?
Stigma, as well as most of the focus being on DID and trauma-related dissociation. Trauma-related dissociation tends to catch the attention of psychologists more than non-traumagenic dissociation due to its effects on a person's functioning and quality of life. Endogenic systems tend to function well without psychological intervention, and without many endogenics catching the eye of psychologists, the systems that could be studied fly under the radar. There is a stigma against the idea of multiple identities sharing a body together no matter their origin, with many voicing their disbelief in the condition despite evidence for its existence. It's only been recently that the concept of endogenic plurality as anything more than an anomaly has even appeared in the public eye, so chances are that it may be a while before psychologists seriously consider it and start doing studies.
Question: Are endogenic systems and traumagenic systems the same thing?
No, they are not. While they do share many similarities, endogenic plurality generally does not cause distress and severe dissociation associated with trauma, while traumagenic systems may struggle with distress and severe dissociation. Endogenic systems usually do not require treatment for dissociation caused by trauma, while traumagenic systems often need treatment for dissociation and traumatic memories. Both do deserve respect and the right to be treated as people, but traumagenic systems may need more help to function in this world. They are similar, but different in some very important aspects.
Question: Isn't this something that originated on social media sites?
No. Even though plurality and the term "headmates" have become well known recently from various media sites, the concept of being naturally plural originated before then, and people were talking about then too.
Question: Isn't this encouraging harmful self-diagnosis?
Absolutely not. Being an endogenic system means that someone is plural without trauma being a factor, and is not a diagnosis anywhere in the DSM-5. It is a state of being, a kind of condition, but not something someone can diagnose another person with. Claiming an endogenous origin does not automatically mean that someone is claiming to have self-diagnosed medical conditions, such as DID or OSDD.
Question: Doesn't "system" mean DID? Aren't endogenics claiming to have DID as a result?
The word "system" has been circulated and used in the wider plural community since at least the late nineties, even flowing into communities such as the tulpamancy community, and has never solely been the property of DID systems, having been used in other psychological concepts such as Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy. Additionally the word itself was never coined specifically for the discussion of DID or dissociative disorders, having been a general word to describe collections of objects (like the 'solar system') for centuries. It would be pretty unusual for someone to get possessive of a word always used by the mainstream public!
When someone says they are an endogenic system, typically they are saying that they are a plural system that did not originate from trauma, and they are using "system" to refer to the entire collection of headmates.
Question: Isn't this just a way for teenagers and young adults to try and "collect" their favorite kintypes/fictional characters/etc.?
While it might seem that way on the surface, rest assured that the variance you see in a system is usually a result of each headmate being a different individual and having a different personal identity due to the way they formed. Not all systems will have wildly differing members, but those that do are not automatically trying to "collect" them all or one-up other members. Some communities centered around identity (kin, therian, trans, etc.) may have admins or members who worry about these systems participating due to the wide variety in headmates they may present with, but if they are abiding by the rules and behaving appropriately there shouldn't be an issue.
Question: Won't this prevent people from getting help for other ailments disguised as plurality?
It shouldn't. While every system may have their reasons for accepting or refusing medical or mental health at one time or another, and some people may feel more comfortable asking for help for certain problems, avoiding help simply because one is endogenic is not healthy, and the majority of plural systems will visit doctors when it is appropriate. As endogenic plurality is a condition that often arises in childhood and continues in adulthood with a fairly typical presentation (or less commonly, arises in adulthood from non-traumagenic reasons), the idea that there is a malignant physical condition causing endogenic plurality is unfounded. Even those who discover their plurality as an adult may question it and check in with a mental health professional to be safe, and those who are experiencing significant distress, unwanted dissociation or amnesia from their plurality should (and often do) check in with a mental health professional.
Question: Isn't this just roleplay taken too far?
Not at all. There is a difference between a person willingly getting into character for a game or show, and a person who continuously has another person in their head talking to them, adding input, and controlling their body for months and years on end. Roleplay is typically done with the intent of acting out a scenario or pretending to be another person or entity for fun or attention, whereas being endogenic is simply what one is, and doesn't involve much more than expressing one's plurality. Some systems may distinguish their system members by signing and some may talk about what goes on in their headspaces, but this is a far cry from the expressive, dramatic and fantastical forms of roleplay seen from many roleplayers. In addition, plurality often comes with additional life-altering experiences (like co-communication, switching, dream encounters, etc.) and changes (learning to manage disagreements, delegating chores, etc.) that roleplayers never claim. Some headmates of some systems may take an interest in roleplay, but after they are done pretending they are back to being themselves as a member of the system.
In short, roleplayers are temporarily and purposefully acting out a role divorced from reality, whereas endogenic systems are emphasizing that they are more-than-one in reality and truly live this way. Roleplay is accepted by many as a standard thing people do, while being plural is considered "abnormal" and transgressive by many. Anyone who mixed up the two would soon learn the difference.
Question: Isn't endogenic plurality explained better by other conditions?
What would you call a (largely) non-pathological and non-distressing kind of condition in which two or more people share a brain, can sometimes alternate physical control of a body, and may experience brief episodes of dissociation?
Most mental illnesses are eliminated immediately due to "distress" being a factor in diagnosis, and while it may be tempting to explain away endogenic plurality as imagination gone wild, in many cases of endogenic plurality people do not ask to be plural or try to make themselves plural. They may be born that way, predisposed or somehow inclined to form headmates, but they typically do not choose it, nor is it something that can be turned off at will. Endogenic plurality seems to make the most sense for many, especially those who have identified themselves as endogenic for years and years.
Question: Why not integrate and be normal?
There is no need to try and fix what appears to be a harmless neurotype or spirituality if no one is distressed or harmed by it. Additionally, integration as a treatment appears to have a low sucess rate, and even lower if the system in question is not interested in integrating. In a few cases, there are systems who cannot integrate at all for whatever reason, and so for most endogenic systems treatment is like a pipe dream that they never wanted.
Question: Why do some endogenic systems get disgruntled when I ask them for proof of this concept?
This is because you are asking for proof of their existence as well, something that many people do not have to prove in order to be accepted as people but endogenic systems are asked to provide, sometimes even in the absence of proof for related concepts, such as psychological proof of how human consciousness works. This does not excuse unusually hostile or violent behavior on the part of the system, but this does explain why some may respond to the idea of "proof" negatively.
Question: How can you know you didn't experience trauma, if dissociative amnesia can play a part?
While dissociative amnesia can cloud or outright erase some memories of trauma and cause the initial appearance of being an endogenic system, after a while this may fade as the system gets to know itself more, and realizes that trauma did play an active part in shaping their system, revealing their true nature. However, it would be unusual for this to continue on for years or even decades, through stressors and life changes, and never reveal the pathological dissociation or memory loss typical in DID or OSDD-1 cases. Other systems may actively recall a large portion of their childhood and know that trauma didn't play a part, and some may know there was trauma involved but understand it didn't play a role in creating the system. There are even endogenic systems who remember being plural before any major trauma occurred!
Even regardless of trauma, the fact that there are certain experience differences (such as a lack of impactful negative dissociation) and differing views on plurality imply that there's something going on that separates endogenic (and non-traumagenic) plurality from other forms of plurality.
Question: How is this possible spiritually?
As we have nothing factually proven about the spiritual, any way you can imagine. Some systems may view themselves as having more than one soul inside of them, while others may see themselves as possessing one soul but neurologically predisposed to be multiple people and thus endogenic. Others may not care or hold any hard beliefs one way or the other.
Question: Is this something that should be treated spiritually (through exorcisms, faith healings, etc.)?
No. It can actually be harmful to try and treat any form of plurality as a spiritual failing, or attempt to exorcise a plural system. These techniques do not work, and may negatively impact a system's functioning and view of themselves.
Question: Isn't this harmful mentally?
Not so. This is based on the assumption that something's inherently wrong with being plural or that being plural is a sign of deeper cognitive and mental issues most of the time, when there is no reason to conclude that this is the case. Neurodivergence isn't always a problem that must be treated. As long as an endogenic system can get their needs met and is happy the way they are, there shouldn't be any deeper problems.
Question: Do endogenic systems want to take over the DID/OSDD community?
No. Most endogenic systems wish to exist in piece and harmony with the other plural communities. While of course mistakes do happen, and some systems may end up in the wrong group by mistake, redirection is usually all it takes to set things right. Most endogenic systems understand they do not have DID or OSDD, and do not want access to these specialized communities. Rarely an endogenic system may be diagnosed with DID or OSDD due to "technically" fitting the criteria at the time (ex. an endogenic system that is struggling with communication but lacks posttraumatic symptoms and distressing dissociation may still be diagnosed with OSDD due to an inability to function properly without communication) and feel they should have access to those groups due to their diagnosis. Similar situations have been documented before in individuals undergoing trance possession, and it is not unlikely that this could also happen to some endogenic systems (Delmonte et al., 2015). However, these are rare cases and most endogenic systems are not diagnosed with DID/OSDD and do not want to take over the specialized DID/OSDD communities.
Question: How can a system with more than a hundred members function without serious issues?
In much the same way any other group with rules and goals can navigate and function in the world. If everyone in the system can follow the rules, or share the same goals the likelihood of serious issues impacting functioning is low. Not all headmates need to use the body regularly, and so you may encounter systems who have a large amount of members but only a few are ever seen most of the time. Memory sharing and co-communication can prevent disorientation when someone is passing on responsibilities to a new headmate, and pre-planning for events and life needs can ensure that life continues on smoothly with another person at the wheel.
Question: Wouldn't an endogenic system always run into internal arguments and fights?
Not necessarily. Internal arguments or disagreements may pop up from time to time (as with any other group of people) but they can be sorted out, and are often taken care of once a system sets up a way of managing them. In cases where this is happening more often than not and seriously stressing out the system or impairing functioning, this may indicate that there are deeper issues within the system that need to be addressed.
Question: Do all endogenic systems hold the same beliefs about plurality, or topics outside of it?
No. The community is not a monolith, and while there may be shared or prominent beliefs held here and there, generally each system and the people within it will have their own views and ideas on a wide range of topics. Thus if you meet one system you don't get along with or disagree with, it's not fair to generalize and assume all systems (or their members) will feel the same way. There's no one stereotype or belief all systems adhere to, we're all individuals!
Question: Are endogenic systems hiding their trauma history?
Not really. Some systems may be trying to figure themselves out and may identify as endogenic for a time before realizing they have trauma, but others are endogenic regardless. While some endogenic systems admit that they have had trauma, their trauma is not the cause of their plurality, and they are not obliged to divulge any information about what they've been through to strangers.
Question: Why are you telling me all of this?
Because it is important for people to realize that endogenic plurality is a real and serious phenomena that some experience. It is important for people to understand what endogenic systems need (acceptance and understanding) and what they don't need (invasive treatments aimed at curing a non-pathological form of neurodivergence), and it is important for others who are still discovering or may not be completely aware of their plurality, and want to figure out what's going on with them.
Sources:
Humpston, C. S. (2017). The paradoxical self: Awareness, solipsism and First-rank symptoms in schizophrenia. Philosophical Psychology, 31(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1410877
Parekh, R., MD. (2017, January). What Is Schizophrenia? Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/schizophrenia/what-is-schizophrenia
Delmonte, R., Lucchetti, G., Moreira-Almeida, A., & Farias, M. (2015). Can thedsm-5differentiate BETWEEN nonpathological possession and dissociative identity disorder? A case study from AN AFRO-BRAZILIAN RELIGION. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2015.1103351
Thomas, A. (2001). Factitious and Malingered Dissociative Identity Disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 2(4), 59–77.doi:10.1300/j229v02n04_04
Humpston, C. S. (2017). The paradoxical self: Awareness, solipsism and First-rank symptoms in schizophrenia. Philosophical Psychology, 31(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1410877
Parekh, R., MD. (2017, January). What Is Schizophrenia? Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/schizophrenia/what-is-schizophrenia
Delmonte, R., Lucchetti, G., Moreira-Almeida, A., & Farias, M. (2015). Can thedsm-5differentiate BETWEEN nonpathological possession and dissociative identity disorder? A case study from AN AFRO-BRAZILIAN RELIGION. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2015.1103351
Thomas, A. (2001). Factitious and Malingered Dissociative Identity Disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 2(4), 59–77.doi:10.1300/j229v02n04_04
