Below is part of the transcript from episode 275, in which we answered an email about how to find a therapist:

Finding a new therapist is brutal. Brutal.

 So for those who have not had this experience, let's literally just pause the emails for a minute and walk through this. Let me show you on our side of things as a client—as a survivor—what that's like. So knowing that I need someone who can help with trauma, and someone who can help with dissociative disorders, that's what I start my search with when I'm looking for a new therapist. And the easiest way these days, obviously, is to look online. You can look at the EMDRIA site. You can look at the ISSTD site. You could look at sensorimotor. You could find a particular modality if you really want something specific. Or you can just do a general search for trauma and dissociation therapy or something like that. Right? I don't usually search for DID therapist or dissociative identity disorder therapist, because it limits the results so much that it's you almost can't find anything because most people don't advertise that specifically. But they may advertise dissociative disorders or have that listed either on their Psychology Today profile—which again guys, those are not vetted at all, they're just uploaded by therapists, so you still have to be super careful—or they might have it listed on their website. Okay, so that's the first thing I search for.

 And then when I find someone and I look at their profile or their website and it looks like not crazy and not creepy, because sometimes you pull up a profile or a website and there's like weird stuff in their office, or it looks creepy, or it's all dark, or you're just not comfortable for some reason. Like, for us, our agreement is to trust our intuition. So if something feels off just looking at the website or their profile, we definitely just skip that one. Because why go in person to feel something we can already feel just looking. So again, that may limit some of our choices, but it also protects us in a way of adding safety by paying attention to the signals we're getting. They may not be always accurate because there's not actually a lot of information to go by, but it's enough to pay attention. And as survivors, I feel like we're really in tune with that, if we will listen to it. So that's the next step.

 And then out of the results that are left, it's a matter of matching, at least for us in America, it is matching insurance and availability. Like can you see me when I'm available to be seen, are you also available? And also can I actually afford to see you? Because therapy is expensive. And as a therapist, I also would like to get paid. And yes, there's so much paperwork that we have to do that is not within the 45 minutes or hour of our session time. And there are trainings we have to do and certifications we have to keep, plus paying for office or zoom or whatever. All of that overhead cost is legitimate. So I get it because I am a therapist, and I am trying to have an office and things like that. And all of those costs don't even count trying to feed my children or actually provide for my family. Like it's even just sustaining to keep the office open so that I can continue to be available for people. So I get that it's difficult. But also as a parent of six children with lots of medical needs, and eight people in our family, our budget is very, very tight, especially through the pandemic. One of our jobs was traveling for the refugee work and the war zones and the disaster sites. We can't do that during the pandemic. So that money is completely on hold, which was our primary income. And most of our clients don't pay us as much as they did before because also the pandemic has impacted them. But we still want to help. And so what do you do? It's a fine line of navigating all that, right. So the therapist’s job, though, is to negotiate the fees for their therapy services that they offer, according to what they are able to do. And then I have to offer what I can do and choose based on what I'm able to pay or not. And when that matches, it works out; when it doesn't match, it doesn't work out. And sometimes that's really hard.

 Okay, so when it looks like there's a match for fees based on their profile or their website, and it's someone that I maybe could budget in, and they also see trauma and dissociation, then it's a matter of contacting them to see if they're actually available. The challenge at this stage of things is that the therapists who are really good, are usually really full. And so they have a waitlist, or it's difficult to schedule with them, and that can be really daunting. Especially if you feel like you're in a bit of a crisis and someone can't see you fairly quickly. It's really difficult. So let me read you some of the emails we have actually gotten back from people and why we chose to see them or did not choose to see them.

 Okay, so my first example was a lady we contacted. And I'm not going to say any names. And it doesn't give you away because we had to see in the last year therapist in like a four state area, okay. And because of telehealth, that could be anywhere in those states. So I don't think I'm disclosing anything inappropriate. But let me share what that experience is like. So to be clear, for me because I am deaf with cochlear implants, when I contact a new therapists I have to do it over email. I cannot just call the office and them call me back. Like you can't play phone tag with a deaf phone. That's not how it works. I can call out with some special equipment, but it's very difficult and I usually have to have the husband with me. And so I don't do that very often. Although it's something I'm trying to practice a little bit, but it's very difficult. So for something like this, especially because I'm also extra anxious, I do it by email. Because you're doing it by email, and you're not actually signed up into someone's like secure portal or whatever yet, you don't want to give lots of information that is private. Like don't send them your insurance card over email. Don't tell them your birthday or social security card number over email. Does that make sense? But you can say, “Hey, this is me. I'm looking for a therapist on these issues, like trauma and dissociation. And I'm available on these days. Do you have any openings? Do you think you we might be a good fit?” Something like that. And then usually what happens, either they email you back, or they send you a link to their portal so that you can talk to them privately. Or you can set up a time to actually have a free phone consult where you can sort of talk on the phone and see if you feel like a fit and make an appointment. So there's several different things that can happen next, but generally, that's how it goes.

 So let me share with you some of the emails. One email that I got back last year was from someone who said: I received your email. I would be happy to discuss with you my services. Are you available at such and such a time. I do work with trauma and dissociative disorders, and I'm also a nurse. So I have special interest in working with medical trauma. I have availability at the following times if you would like to schedule an appointment. Now, you guys, that was like an ideal email. And of course, I snatched her up. And I wanted to see her because she understood medical trauma. So I thought that would be helpful for Em dealing with our daughter and her medical needs. There were things that are difficult to explain to people that maybe she would understand right away. And so we connected with her. But then it turned out that she could not take our insurance and so we did not get to see her.

 Another email that we got back from someone last year was really good example as well, said: Thank you for your email. I do take your insurance, and I also help with trauma. Unfortunately, my waitlist is until late March or early April. If you don't mind waiting that long you can call our office at this number and schedule an appointment and also get on our waitlist. I also work with families if that would be helpful to you. Let me know which direction you want to go. So she was very clear about when she was available, whether she took my insurance or not, and how she could help. This is the woman that actually ended up being our family therapist where we used to all go, all eight of us for the children, and just hang out there for two hours rotating everybody through. And she was amazing. And so one thing that was also helpful as she responded so quickly, and she was available by email, which I really need as a deaf person. I do not abuse that privilege. I do not send crisis messages to the therapist. So that one worked out, but for the children, not for us.

 As the year progressed last year and the pandemic started, I also needed to find someone who specifically would do telehealth because I was not able to go into the office. And where I live, not everyone took it seriously in the beginning. And so some people were not available on telehealth. So since that was something I needed, that was something to ask upfront. So a good example of this response from a therapist that we actually saw until we moved was: Hi. Thank you for touching base. I do currently have a few openings. Let me know what days and times work for you. I do take your insurance, no problem there. I will be supportive of you in your healing journey and however you integrate your beliefs and family into that just let me know as we go. At this point, I'm doing exclusively telemedicine, I'm considering doing that long term, or with some in office after the pandemic. You can email me here and you can text my phone number at this number. So she was very clear about what is okay and what is not okay with her, her availability, and what she can help with or not. And I asked, I followed up with some more detail questions, and at that point moved to the portal so that I could ask more specific questions privately. And this person we saw most of the beginning of the summer until we moved. So this one really worked out and we only didn't get to stay with her because we had to move.

 So those are some good examples. Let me give you some not so good examples. This person emailed back and said: Good afternoon. I do offer telehealth, but please call the clinic to schedule an appointment. They do all of that for me. Thank you for reaching out. So when at that point, I realized that this person was actually in a larger practice or some sort of community building, which I already know is too overwhelming for me. So I didn't even reply to that person. If they could not help me get an appointment scheduled and get me into the building the first time, they are not someone who can help me with some of our issues.

 Another person wrote: Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately, I have a full caseload right now and do not have room for another client at this time. I know the agency I'm contracted with has several really good trauma therapist, and they maybe could help you. And then ask for so and so, she's great. I think she may have a staff meeting on the day you want. But she could call you back if you wanted. So this person was polite, but totally couldn't help. And if they're a contractor, like they revealed so much about their office dynamics, I just didn't, that was not going to work.

 Another one wrote: Thanks for reaching out. What problems are you experiencing? But that's all that they said. No way to contact them, no way to talk to them privately, and no follow up as far as if they're available to help with some of that. And so that person we did not see.

 Another one said: I use a sliding scale and I do help telehealth, but I'm not contracted for your insurance. I can only bill for children. You could try and then she gave me the number of a community mental health agency, which I appreciate. But again, that was not the setting that was going to work for us. We had already tried that and it was like a walking panic attack just to get into the therapists office. Which is really sad because the therapist was amazing.

 After we moved, a therapist wrote: I am happy to schedule a mental health telesession with you. Are there certain days or times a day that are more open for you? The way we will get started is I will send you an invitation to join our client portal. After joining a client portal, you will find some intake paperwork and a questionnaire. That's also how we do billing. I am happy to answer any more questions you may have on the client portal to protect your privacy. Feel free to reply to this email or use the contact information below, but I will watch for you on the portal. I look forward to hearing from you soon. So this person actually that was an amazing response. It totally worked out. That's who we saw after we moved here until they change portal sites and we somehow got lost in the middle. Their email changed, and their portal site changed, and we just sort of didn't hear back from them. So that was a little bit traumatic because we really liked her.

 Someone else wrote to us: Thank you for your email, I understand that you're looking for an appointment. I'm available for ongoing and consistent support. I do cognitive behavioral with trauma informed in parentheses if that is what you want. That is not what I want you guys, and so I did not reply to them.

 Here's another email from a therapist who did equine therapy. And she was here after we moved. And so we contacted her to try to set the children up with her. And she sent us the link to the portal that worked really well. We filled out all of the paperwork, which takes ages for children's Medicaid, and six of them at that. And so I spent hours and hours and hours, like an entire day, filling out all the paperwork. I got everything signed, I emailed her back PDFs of that, and gave her list of our availability which she had asked for. And then we never heard from her again. And it was so frustrating because we spent hours filling out that paperwork and never heard from her. I still don't know what happened. Like I don't know if she got COVID, or if our paperwork was just lost, or she didn't want to see us after she saw the issues that children had. I don't know, but we never heard from her. So that's another example.

 Here's another one that was really good. This one said: I just got your email, and wanting to send you an invite to my patient portal. You can have a free session so we can get to know each other a little bit and see if we're a fit. I'm also going to send you an invitation for Spruce, which is an app that we can text securely on so that your information is protected, but you can still get ahold of me if you need to, or just share what's going on. Sometimes that's important with trauma clients. We can do video sessions. And we can talk about scheduling sessions during the day. I absolutely have availability during the times you mentioned. And I can meet with you more than once weekly if that would be helpful. And then she gave me a list of her schedule of open times. And you, your choices for payment are these and she gave different ways that we could pay her securely and said, Here's an appointment. You don't have to pay for the first appointment so that we can get to know one another. And this is actually our therapists that we really appreciated this spring who passed away from COVID. She really had things set up in a secure way and we felt safe with her. So then we had to do it all again. When our therapist died from COVID, we had to go through this all again.

 So one person wrote back: I'm taking new clients now, yes. We can do in person or telehealth. I can help you with trauma. It's actually something I really enjoy helping people through. My sessions are $250 out of pocket. Let me know when you want to meet. Yeah, you guys. That didn't happen. I don't have $250 a pop.

 So the next one wrote back and said: I can help with trauma, and here are some of the trainings I've done and experiences I have that shows I'm able to do so. Which I actually really appreciated. However, I get several requests for telehealth, so I'm thinking I will move those to their own day. Do you want to do this day only at this time? So then she talked about her schedule, and we set an appointment, and that was fine. But then she emailed back and had to move things because she decided to move of her telehealth people to one day. And then she emailed again because she had to cancel for something else she was doing. Like, she was just too busy. So that one didn't work out.

 There were other emails we've gotten that literally said: I can help with your issues. But I don't have time right now. Like, if you can’t squeeze me in for an hour, there's no way that you can squeeze me into your head space. You know what I mean? Like, if they don't have time to just schedule something, then they certainly don't have time to actually like hold space and presence with us. When DID is such a long term and intense experience, which I already feel guilty for. Like I'm going into therapy, feeling bad for what I'm going to have to put this person through just for me to get better. Like it feels so yucky and abusive, even if that's all not like entirely accurate thinking. Or even if the therapist can explain how it's done from their side of things. Which technically I understand, because I get in that role too for work, right. So it's really tricky.

 The therapist we have now that we have been able to see five times in a row, we went ahead and set up with her because she gave us lots of availability times. She was careful about our confidentiality. She demonstrated that she understood about trauma and dissociation without being overly intrusive before we were ready to go there. And because she was available on telehealth and had a sliding scale that we could do within the budget of our family, even though we don't actually even have that money. Like it's really, really hard, right. But we can work extra and just do our best because being tired and worn out is somehow better than not making it. Right, so.

 So we accepted an appointment with that therapist, and then going to the first session, and feeling how she talked about things, the respectful language that she used, this safety that she created in the rapport between us, even though clearly we have some serious therapy issues. And her capacity to sort of get some of that information out of us in a general way without being pushy, is what got us back for this second appointment.

 The second appointment we're just going to call a wash, because we basically cried the whole time, because our other therapist was dead, and the therapist before that is just like a hole in our heart, right. And so there is that just pain. But it was coming out and it was coming out in a safe place. And it was coming out in a way that we were not alone. And so that is why we showed up for the third appointment.

 The third appointment, she gave us some new resources, which we'll talk about on the podcast later. But some books we hadn't even heard of, although you probably have heard of them, but we hadn't heard of them. And gave us some homework to get these books and to read some specific things to talk about how they apply to us. And that is when we started learning and giving that framework of a way to ease back into therapy through a safe context, as opposed to jumping back into trying to establish a relationship with a therapist. Because right now that's where our wound is. And so that's not happening. There is no parade of altars. There no little showing up in therapy, even if it's to distract things. Like they are not coming. They are not participating. They are not going there. And we won't let them. Like, that it hurts too much. But having this framework of let's talk about dissociation, and let's talk about trauma through these books, and in a very safe window of tolerance kind of way, gave us a way to at least engage with the process and to attempt to hold on in a way that at least put some footing under our feet a little bit again. And that's why we showed up for the fourth appointment.

 At the fourth appointment, she had all kinds of stuff ready that reminded us of things that we learned from like Christine Forner about the brain, and some of the things we've learned through the ISSTD courses over the last year. And so that was familiar enough that it built somehow on this safety through the books and that framework. It added a layer of familiarity, which helped us bring down those walls just a little bit. Not enough to engage, not enough to give any pieces away. And we spent the whole time crying again. So it was embarrassing. But she used some art, we did some art together. And she used some of the reading to help us put into words what was going on and noticing patterns of what was triggering these big responses that would get us so tangled with our friends, or so tangled from what happened in therapy before. And that at least was like a balm on the wound, even though it's so raw and vulnerable. And so that was huge. And that's what got us back to the fifth session.

 And then in the fifth session, we somehow through conversations stumbled upon both of us knowing—like Bible knowing—I don't mean the actual Bible. But I mean, like our other Bible is the Wolves book, the Women Who Run With the Wolves. And she is the first person that we have ever met, who not only also knew the book, but like knew knew the book. Like we could quote something or reference something to try to express what we were feeling. And she got it. And you guys for whatever reason, that nailed it. Like it was out of the ballpark. It is the first time that we felt safe and comfortable and expressive in therapy in over a year, almost two years. It was so good. And it was so helpful. And she gave so much homework, which we're not thrilled about. But all of this we'll be talking about in other episodes to share what we're learning and how things are progressing. But yes, finally, things are going very well.

 So I'm sorry to go off on all that tangent, but I'm saying I get it and finding a new therapist is exhausting. But also, when you find that therapist that knows how to help you and is accessible, and is available, and is respectful of your experience, and builds safety in that way. You guys, you've got to do everything on your end to do that work. To honor that opportunity. It is such a privilege space. It is such a sacred space. And there is hope there again in a way there hasn't been in a long time.

Our guest this week is Dr. Lou Himes.

Dr. Lou Himes is a licensed clinical psychologist and gender specialist in New York.

They identify as gender non-binary and use they/them/theirs pronouns. 

Lou maintains a strong commitment to social justice and aspires to play an active role in eliminating mental health disparities for members of queer communities. Lou has more than 10 years experience working with the LGBTQIA+ community. They are a WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) certified specialist in mental health and provides consultation regarding the current WPATH Standards of Care (7) guidelines for the appropriate treatment of transgender individuals. 

In addition to their work in full time private practice, Lou also offers a variety of educational opportunities for organizations or individual practitioners seeking to provide competent care to queer individuals. This includes basic practices for helping queer and transgender individuals feel safe and welcomed into one’s office, holy space, community, and/or business.

 You can see their website HERE.

On March 5th, we helped with the first ever DID Awareness Day webinar from ISSTD!

This event was hosted as a panel, with speakers from An Infinite Mind, Beauty After Bruises, and the Blue Knot Foundation.

Thank you for all who joined us!

You can watch the video of the webinar HERE:

Dr. Mary-Anne Kate is an award-winning post-doctoral researcher specialising in interpersonal trauma, attachment, and post-traumatic disorders.

She is a Scientific Committee member of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, where she also teaches the introductory course on dissociation alongside Christine Forner. 

Mary-Anne is the lead author of the chapter on dissociative and somatic disorders in Wiley's Abnormal Psychology textbook, and has written articles on post-traumatic disorders, including dissociative disorders complex PTSD, and borderline personality disorder.

Mary-Anne also has over a decade's experience as a senior policy officer in Canberra, a program manager in Cairo, and a policy analyst in Brussels  improving quality of life outcomes, including mental health, for vulnerable client groups such as migrants, refugees, and other minorities.

Mary-Anne lives on the mid-north coast of New South Wales in Australia and currently teaches on the Master in Mental Health program at Southern Cross University, and holds an adjunct research position at the University of New England.

This week we welcomed Veronique to the podcast, who shared with us about trauma and chronic illness.

Veronique majored in cross-cultural studies & premed for a BA at Antioch college in Yellow Springs, Ohio, where the focus was also on experiential learning. She then found a medical school with a similar emphasis on learning by doing, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, whose mission is “to create life-long learners.” This style of learning has served her greatly in the exploration of her health and looking into factors that may have contributed to, and continue to perpetuate, her fatigue.

She attended the University of New Mexico for her Family Practice Residency, having spent her early years in Santa Fe, as it has a medical student program, and philosophy, like McMaster’s. After completing her medical training, she traveled the country doing short stints as a temp doc (locum tenens). She tested out different environments such as private, independent outpatient practices in Michigan and Rhode-Island, hospital-based clinics in Maine, the Indian Health Service in North Dakota, and an isolated clinic in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

She then settled down as full-time faculty in a small, community-based residency training program that was just getting started, in Concord, New Hampshire, where she delivered babies, taught residents and medical students, bought her first house, and made good friends.

In 1998, she took a year off and realized that she could become more like one of her role models, Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, who works with the relationship between mind and body. She went back to school to become a somatic psychotherapist. What she learned helped make sense of her own symptoms. She got a Master’s degree at Naropa University and did specialty training in working with trauma, bonding and attachment.

Her research has taken the form of scouring the medical databases for over twenty years. She has put together new ways of making sense of  chronic illness; and finding commonalities between chronic illnesses (chronic fatigue syndrome ME/CFS, MS, diabetes (both type 1 and 2), RA, Inflammatory bowel disease, Lupus, and asthma, among others). She has also been using herself as a case study, examining and working with her symptoms and their relationships to past and present life events, and she shares these throughout her blog to validate just how much is changing in our understanding of disease and tools for healing.

• 1986 BA Cross Cultural Studies & Pre Med – Antioch College – “learning by doing”

• 1990 MD – McMaster University Medical School, Ontario, Canada – “how to be lifelong learners”

• 1993 Family Physician – University of New Mexico in Albuquerque Family Practice Residency

• 1993-1995 Family Physician Locum Tenens (short term clinical work around the USA)

• 1995-1998 Assistant Professor – New Hampshire Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program, teaching; obstetrics and full spectrum care;

• 2003 MA Somatic Psychology / Body-Based Psychotherapy – Naropa University in Boulder, CO – working with the wisdom & language of the body and symptoms

• 2000 to present: Nervous System Specialist using Somatic & Trauma Therapies

• 2001 Training – Sensorimotor Psychotherapy (Trauma)

• 2006+ Training – Somatic Experiencing Practitioner (Trauma)

• 2006+ Training – Prenatal and Perinatal Professional Training (Early Trauma)

Master’s Thesis:  Mead, V. P. (2003). Somatic psychology theory and the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes. Somatic Psychology. Boulder (CO), Naropa University: 427 p.

Journal Article: Mead, V. P. (2004). “A new model for understanding the role of environmental factors in the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes mellitus.” Med Hypotheses 63(6): 1035-1046.

Book Chapter: Mead, V. P. (2007). Timing, Bonding, and Trauma: Applications from experience-dependent maturation and traumatic stress provide insights for understanding environmental origins of disease. Advances in Psychology Research. A. M. Columbus, Nova Science Publishers. 49: 1-80. (downloadable from bottom of free ebooks page)

Special links referenced in the podcast included:

ACEs and chronic illness
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/adverse-childhood-experiences-and-chronic-illness-boyhood/

Her own story and journey with chronic illness from trauma perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/how-understanding-trauma-is-making-sense-of-my-chronic-illness-and-helping-me-heal/

A list of somatic trauma therapies she recommends for healing trauma and nervous system perceptions of threat
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/chronic-illness-recovery-books-on-trauma/

A list of books on trauma and chronic illness and related perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/therapies-chronic-illness-stress-triggers-perception-threat/

Her blog is HERE.

Our guest this week is Ken Benau, PhD.

Ken Benau, Ph.D. has been a licensed psychologist for 30 years, with an independent practice in psychotherapy, consulting and training, currently in Kensington, CA (SF Bay Area).  Dr. Benau has a special interest in working with children, adolescents and adults living with various learning differences, ADHD and High Functioning Autism, as well as depression and anxiety.  Dr. Benau also works with survivors of relational or developmental trauma, all from an integrative approach to psychotherapy.  His theoretical orientations include attachment and emotion-focused, psychodynamic, experiential, somatic and Coherence Therapy.  Dr. Benau has a special interest in understanding and working with shame and pride in survivors of relational trauma, and has written several articles and is currently working on a book with that theme. 

His website is HERE.

Our guest this week was Richard Schwartz, PhD, who developed the Internal Family Systems (IFS) model of treatment for trauma and other therapeutic issues:

Richard Schwartz began his career as a systemic family therapist and an academic. Grounded in systems thinking, Dr. Schwartz developed Internal Family Systems (IFS) in response to clients’ descriptions of various parts within themselves. He focused on the relationships among these parts and noticed that there were systemic patterns to the way they were organized across clients. He also found that when the clients’ parts felt safe and were allowed to relax, the clients would experience spontaneously the qualities of confidence, openness, and compassion that Dr. Schwartz came to call the Self. He found that when in that state of Self, clients would know how to heal their parts.

A featured speaker for national professional organizations, Dr. Schwartz has published many books and over fifty articles about IFS. You can read more about him and about IFS on his website HERE.

Our guest this week was Jess from the YouTube channel Multiplicity and Me.

The BBC Documentary they received an award for about Dissociative Identity Disorder can be seen here:

The “360 Project” Jess referenced is here:

On today’s podcast, we share the PPWC Survey Results about Plural Experience, as an expression of plural culture and shared experiences. These results were accepted for a Poster Session at the 2020 ISSTD Conference in San Francisco. However, as you now know, the conference was cancelled at the last minute due to efforts of government officials’ attempts at controlling the Coronavirus through social distancing. Because we were not able to share our poster, we did take pictures of it and do share them below.

As part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), we helped with a survey with results to be shared in 2020. This Plural Positivity Experience survey was not associated with any research project, nor did the survey go through any review panel process. There was input from the Plural community itself, including deciding which contextual questions to include (such as the ACE’s questionnaire) as well as verbiage options to be as inclusive as possible for the Plural experience. Again, this was not a research project, but was an expression of the Plural experience, both individually and as a community.

Please note:

• Participants were informed that the survey results would be shared during the 2020 PPWC Conference.

• To continue the survey, participants had to agree that they understood this and that they were over 18.

• Any participant who did not agree to have their results shared or who were under 18 were excluded from the survey results published below.

• It was explicitly stated, and participants agreed to understanding, that the questions were only for information about their experiences and not at all diagnostic in nature.

• Participants were also warned that due to the nature of trauma-specific questions, they could be triggered during the survey. Resources and referrals for support were offered, and system-wide self care was encouraged before, during, and after participating in the survey.

SURVEY DESIGN

This survey was designed by plurals themselves, as a community, following online discussions in support groups, peer mentoring groups, and a variety of social platforms. The common threads of interest were narrowed down and presented in polls on the social platforms. From these results, the questions included in the survey were designed. While obviously vast and covering a multiplicity (pun intended) of areas that would be too many variables for a research project, this was again just the general areas of experience that plurals themselves wanted to know more about and were interested in learning in regards to shared experiences.

The survey was in English.

The survey took an average of 26 minutes to complete.

The first page of the survey was simply exclusionary material clarifying the purpose, concerns, and limitations of the survey. Any “no” responses exited the participant from the survey. Questions included:

1. I am over the age of 18.

2. I understand the screening tools used in this survey are for data gathering only, and not meant to be diagnostic in nature.

3. I understand that due to the nature of the survey in regards to trauma and dissociation, some of the questions may be triggering.  I am safe and able to care for myself during and after this survey, and know where and how to seek support if I need help.

4. I understand I can quit this survey at any time.

5. I understand the data gathered from this survey is non-identifiable, and that the survey is done with SSL encryption.

6. I understand that the data results will be combined, and that the overall results will be shared in the Plural Positivity World Conference for plurals, by plurals.  I understand that the data results will be shared with the conference via the System Speak podcast, which is a public podcast already on air.  I understand that the podcast may be linked to from other blogs, YouTube Channels, and support groups online.  I understand that, while this is not an official research project, the clinical community as a whole may have access to these results generally and the related non-identifiable data.

7. I understand these things and consent to this survey.

The second page of the survey were demographics, including country, identified gender, body age, levels of education for self and each parent. It also included context questions regarding perception of trauma impact on education, frequented online resources, government assistance, housing stability, and patterns of sleeping, eating, and exercise.

The third page of the survey were the questions from the Dissociative Experiences Scale, again clarified that this was for appropriateness of the survey and not for diagnostic purposes.

The fourth page of the survey were the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) questions.

The fifth page of the survey was about therapeutic experiences, including: number of therapists prior to diagnosis, number of therapists since diagnosis, reasons for changing therapists, current reported diagnosis, ritual abuse identification, how therapy is paid for, positive and negative experiences with therapists, what does and does not feel safe in therapy, misdiagnosis experiences, treatment goals, and integration perspectives.

The final page of the survey was cultural, about the personal experiences and identification of or with the integration process and views on functional multiplicity.

There were no research analyses done with the data, beyond the collective-per-question results shared below, or any correlation conclusions drawn from this survey due to this not being an actual research project and other obvious limitations to this survey.

That said, we do believe it to be informational about the common experiences of the Plural community as a whole, and that the survey could be informational upon reflection when considering future clinical studies.

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

The PPWC organizers had an initial goal of 100 responses from different people diagnosed with DID or otherwise identifying as “multiple” or “plural”.

The link to the survey was shared in all known dissociative disorder and plural community support groups on Facebook, posted and shared on Twitter, and then also explained and shared on other communities including Discord, Reddit, and Tumblr.

The link was also left live on this website, and we did discuss it on the podcast.

The link was left live for six months so that as many could participate in the survey as possible.

Ultimately, the survey received 863 responses from different IP addresses (which were not tracked or recorded, but filtered only for non-repetition of the survey).

These responses came from 61 different countries, including:

• North America: Canada, United States, Mexico, and Panama;

• South America: Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile;

• Europe: Iceland, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Greece;

• Africa: Morocco, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa;

• Asia: Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Japan; and

• Australia and New Zealand.

The survey had a 92% completion rate. An additional 6% completed more than 75% of the survey, but needed to stop due to length of the survey. 1% had to stop the survey because of triggers. The final 1% did not complete the survey and did not explain why.

RESULTS

PAGE ONE: Clarifying Material and Consent to the Survey

Only participants who answered “Yes” to the first seven questions (see above) were included in the results below.

PAGE TWO: Demographics

Participant countries were listed above.

In regards to identified gender:

• 54% identified as female;

• 9% identified as male;

• 9% identified as non-binary;

• 8% identified as trans male;

• 4% identified as gender queer;

• 3% identified as trans female;

• 2% identified as gender fluid;

• 2% identified as non-conforming;

• 1% identified as gender variant; and

• 1% identified as questioning.

4% listed “other” as their identified gender, and reported that they did not want to answer.

“Female” and “Trans female” as well as “Male” and “Trans Male” were included separately not to divide the genders (“female” and “trans female” being the same gender, and “male” and “trans male” being the same gender), but simply to clarify experiences in everyone’s request for their journey to be included and reflected.

The remaining percent were decimals in the above percents, as will also be the case with the remaining results below.

In regards to the actual body age, people reported that":

• 43% were ages 25-34;

• 20% were 18-24;

• 16% were 35-44;

• 13% were 45-54;

• 2% were 55-64; and

• 1% was over 65.

We would suggest that the online platforms provided access to younger populations not usually included in research studies. We would also suggest that the online platforms were more accessible to those who are in rural areas and in other geographic locations not usually available to participate in research studies.

In regards to the participants’ fathers’ education:

• 26% had high school education only;

• 21% had graduate level education;

• 20% had bachelor’s level education;

• 17% had some college but no degree;

• 7% had an associate’s degree; and

• 6% did not complete high school.

In regards to the participants’ mothers’ education:

• 25% had a high school degree only;

• 18% had some college but no degree;

• 18% had a bachelor’s degree;

• 14% had a graduate level education;

• 11% had an associate’s degree; and

• 11% did not complete high school.

For participants themselves:

• 35% have some college education but no degree;

• 22% have a bachelor degree;

• 16% have a high school degree only;

• 11% have a graduate degree;

• 9% have an associate’s degree; and

• 4% have not finished high school.

For context, remember that 20% of the participants were in the age group of 18-24; however, that said, more participants have finished high school than their parents. More have some college, even if they have not finished a degree. More have associate’s degrees than their fathers. More have bachelor’s degrees.

Of these, in regards to how their trauma histories impacted their educational efforts, participants reported that:

• 34% felt their trauma impacted their education “a great deal”;

• 25% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot, but I struggled through”;

• 13% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot”;

• 7% felt they were able to complete the education they wanted;

• 6% felt their trauma “moderately” impacted their education;

• 5% felt their education was impacted by trauma “some, but I dealt with it okay”;

• 4% felt their trauma impacted their education “a little”; and

• 1% felt their trauma did not impact their education.

As for online platforms survivors frequently use for support:

• 78% use Facebook;

• 77% use YouTube;

• 70% use Facebook support groups;

• 36% use professional and/or clinical research sites;

• 32% use Twitter;

• 28% use Podcasts;

• 24% use Reddit;

• 22% use Tumblr; and

• 20% use organizational sites.

As for level of functioning and assistance needed:

• 59% of participants reported they are not on any social security, housing assistance, or food stamps;

• 27% of participants reported they are on social benefits;

• 8% of participants reported they use social benefits, as do others in their household; and

• 3% of participants reported they do not, but someone else in their household does.

As for housing stability, participants reported that in the last five years:

• 24% have not moved;

• 20% have moved once;

• 15% have moved three times;

• 13% have moved twice;

• 7% have moved five times;

• 7% have moved more than ten times;

• 4% have moved six times;

• 2% have moved seven times;

• 2% have moved four times;

• 1% have moved eight times; and

• 1% have moved nine times.

In regards to physical care, the survey included questions about sleep, eating, and exercise.

In regards to sleep, participants reported that:

• 54% do not exercise at all, due either to preference or medical condition;

• 21% exercise twice a week;

• 13% exercise once a week; and

• 10% exercise five times a week.

No other responses were reported on that question.

In regards to eating, participants reported that:

• 36% eat twice a day;

• 24% eat three times a day;

• 15% eat smaller amounts four times a day;

• 11% eat just once a day; and

• 6% reported that eating is difficult, and so they leave food out and “whoever inside” just “grazes” throughout the day if and when they are able to eat something.

In addition,

• 34% reported they struggle to eat five to six days a week;

• 20% struggle to eat one to two days a week;

• 20% do not struggle at all to eat;

• 18% struggle to eat three to four days a week; and

• 6% do not miss meals no matter what, nor do they find it difficult to eat.

In regards to sleeping, participants reported that:

• 28% sleep eight hours or more a night because they have help with medication;

• 22% sleep six to eight hours a night without the use of medication;

• 24% sleep four to five hours a night without the use of medication;

• 21% sleep three to four hours a night without the use of medication; and

• 4% sleep one to three hours a night without medication.

In addition,

• 24% rarely have nightmares;

• 22% have nightmares one to two nights a week;

• 18% used to have nightmares, but not so much since starting therapy;

• 15% feel like they still have nightmares every night;

• 11% have nightmares three to four nights a week; and

• 7% have nightmares five to six nights a week.

PAGE THREE: Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) -II

The DES was included for context of what issues participants struggle with and which populations were completing the survey. It was not used for any diagnostic purposes, nor were the results saved in anyway by specific participants. Rather, the algorithm of responses scored this page per participant but only reported in the results of the page in the percentage of participants who scored in each range. So, we were not informed of which DES score goes with which participant. We only know what percentage of each possible DES score. That was intentional, as an additional buffer for privacy since this is not a clinical research study or diagnosis in any way. Participants were not informed of their individual score, nor was this reported to us in anyway. Individual DES-II scores were not reported or disclosed to anyone in any way.

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II. 6% scored between 27-30. 4% scored between 24-26. 1% of participants scored 23 or below.

The high scores were expected, due to the population receiving notice of and participating in this survey were primarily those already in treatment for or aware of their own issues of trauma and dissociation.

Please note that higher scores (30 and above) only indicate high levels of dissociation, and are not indicative of specific diagnosis in and of themselves.

Again, the inclusion of the DES-II was only as a measurement of experience in the context of this survey; no clinical interview, structured or otherwise, was part of this survey, and no diagnoses were given to any participant.

For more information about the DES-II, please visit the ISSTD website. To take an online version of the DES-II, CLICK HERE.

PAGE FOUR: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)

We included the ACE questions by request of the community due to increasing discussion within the community of the physiological impact of trauma long-term.

The ACE study questions were broken down into the questions listed below, to which participants could answer “yes” or “no”. Again, a specific participant’s answers were not saved per participant, but rather as a poll for how many participants answered yes to each question. This was both in protection of people’s privacy and because the survey was not being given in a clinical setting. 4% of participants opted out of this page due to the nature of the triggering questions regarding their own trauma. Another 1% declined to participate for other unspecified reasons. The positive results endorsed by those participants who completed this set of questions are given as follows:

1.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you?

   80% YES

2.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?

   78% YES

3. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?

   66% YES

4. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?

   52% YES

5. Did you often or very often feel that… No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special?

   71% YES

6. Did you often or very often feel that… Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?

   70% YES

7. Did you often or very often feel that… You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you?

   44% YES

8. Did you often or very often feel that… Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?  Or didn't for some other reasons?

   36% YES

9. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you?

   53% YES

10. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?

    45% YES

11. Was your mother or stepmother: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?

    23% YES

12. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?

    15% YES

13. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often threatened with a gun or knife or other weapon?

    4% YES

14. Were your parents separated or divorced?

    49% YES

15. Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic or who used street drugs?

    47% YES

16. Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?

    72% YES

17. Did a household member go to prison?

    15% YES

It is interesting to note that 7% of participants wished the ACE questions included similar specific questions for their father or stepfather the way it does about the mother or stepmother, as this group of people reported their mothers as the or one of the primary abusers even against their father or stepfather.

PAGE FIVE: Therapeutic Experiences

This section of the survey addressed issues regarding therapeutic experiences that the Plural Community had brought up in discussion about what to include in the survey.

In asking about who was in therapy, the participants responded as follows:

• 58% were currently in therapy at the time;

• 10% were, but had to quit because their therapist didn’t “believe” in dissociation;

• 10% wanted to be, but have been unable to find a therapist who works with dissociation;

• 8% were, but had to stop when their funding was cut or insurance stopped paying for it;

• 4% were, but their therapist moved;

• 4% were not currently, but actively looking for a therapist;

• 3% were, but had to stop because of schedule conflicts; and

• 1% were not because they chose not to be in therapy.

Not one person responded that they were in therapy and it was entirely covered by insurance.

When asked about how many therapists they had thus far, participants responded that:

• 21% had been referred more than six times;

• 18% had been referred more than seven times;

• 18% had been referred more than twice;

• 16% had been referred more than three times;

• 11% had more than eight therapists already;

• 10% had more than 10 therapists already; and

• only 4% have only been with one therapist.

The remainder of participants have not yet found a therapist.

When asked why they had seen so many therapists, participants responded as follows (due to multiple experiences with different therapists, participants could report more than one reason, so these percentages do not add up to 100):

• 48% couldn’t make a positive connection with good rapport;

• 39% could tell their therapist didn’t know what to do with them;

• 31% had to move because of related instability;

• 26% felt their therapist didn’t listen to them;

• 25% had a therapist tell them they didn’t know how to treat them;

• 22% felt their therapist did not believe them;

• 17% had a therapist who moved or left an insurance panel;

• 9% were abused by a therapist;

• 8% had a therapist who retired;

• 8% had schedule conflicts;

• 7% didn’t believe their therapist when they did get diagnosed, or got scared, and so quit therapy; and

• 6% left a therapist who was trying to force integration.

“Other” comments included experiences of aging out of a particular school or program, therapist not being able to handle gender identity or sexual orientation issues, being too anxious to keep appointments, finances, and being forced to report abusers.

When asked how many therapists it took before getting an accurate diagnosis, the participants responded that:

• 42% had seen two therapists;

• 39% still had gotten a proper diagnosis with just one therapist;

• 16% had to see four therapists;

• 5% saw six therapists;

• 3% saw more than eight therapists; and

• 1% saw more than fifteen therapists prior to getting an accurate diagnosis.

When asked to share their diagnosis if they felt safe doing so, the participant percentages were:

• 53% DID

• 15% were not sure;

• 12% waiting on results of testing or for diagnostic appointments;

• 8% Complex PTSD

• 5% PTSD

• 4% DDNOS

• 3% OSDD

When asked who did the diagnosing, participants replied that:

• 54% were diagnosed by a therapist;

• 24% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist;

• 23% were diagnosed by case manager or social worker;

• 5% were diagnosed by a doctor; and

• 4% were “peer-diagnosed” by a friend who referred them to a clinical professional.

When asked how they identified any experience of S/RA, participants shared that:

• 56% did not know what the terms were and so did not think it applied to them;

• 23% knew what the terms were, but also knew it did not apply to them;

• 7% preferred the term RA/MC (Ritual Abuse/Mind Control);

• 5% preferred the term (S)RA (Satanic/Ritual Abuse);

• 4% preferred just the general term of trafficking;

• 3% preferred the term RA (Ritual Abuse); and

• 1% preferred the term SRA/MC (Satanic Ritual Abuse / Mind Control).

It is interesting to note that not any single participant chose the more general term of “organizational abuse”, and no single participant endorsed “MC - mind control only”.

When asked about other non-trauma diagnoses:

• 77% also have Anxiety;

• 67% also have Depression;

• 67% have both a Dissociative Disorder and PTSD;

• 25% have a Panic Disorder;

• 19% also have OCD;

• 13% have also been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder;

• 11% have also been diagnosed with a Bipolar disorder;

• 6% have another mood disorder diagnosis; and

• 3% have another personality disorder diagnosis.

When asked about their best therapeutic experiences, participants shared (they could endorse more than one):

• 80% said the best therapy was when the therapist was good at listening to them;

• 57% said it was good therapy when they felt safe;

• 56% said they knew it was good therapy when they got good advice;

• 52% said it is good therapy when they feel connected;

• 49% said the best therapeutic experience is when the therapist responds to others inside (alters/parts);

• 48% said good therapy needs a safe-feeling setting;

• 45% said it is good therapy when they receive comfort;

• 40% said it is good therapy when they gain coping skills;

• 38% said it’s best when they are educated about their mental health issues;

• 38% said the best therapeutic experience is having access to contact outside sessions WHEN policies make those boundaries clear up front;

• 38% said the best experience happens when the scheduling is consistent;

• 27% said the best experience is when they are held accountable for their progress;

• 27% said the best experience is being able to relax and practice relaxation strategies;

• 18% said it is good therapy when they get safe hugs (with permission);

• 13% said it is only a good therapy experience when the office staff also feel safe, both on the phone and for check-in/check-out; and

• 12% said it is good therapy when the therapist plays with Littles or intentionally includes them when appropriate.

When asked about the most helpful techniques their therapists use, participants responded:

• 87% Listening

• 72% Reassurance

• 64% Playing Together

• 62% Art Therapy

• 26% Guided Imagery

• 26% Psychoeducation

• 24% EMDR

• 21% Music

• 19% DBT

• 18% Meditation

• 16% CBT

• 13% Sensory Therapy

• 11% Sandtray Therapy

• 10% Horse or Pet Therapy

• 8% Progressive Muscle Relaxation

• 5% Yoga

• 3% Hypnotherapy

Please note that the above list is not an efficacy rating of which techniques are the most effective or produce the best results. These were simply the comfortable techniques experienced by the participant population of this survey. It does not mean any one of those is better or more helpful than another, and may reflect more frequency of use or access than quality of treatment.

When asked what made them feel NOT safe in therapy, the participants endorsed the following:

• 65% Not knowing how to help me;

• 56% Not listening to me;

• 39% Therapist saying my stories were too hard / too much / too intense for them;

• 37% Therapists refusing to talk to others inside (alters/parts);

• 32% Discounting my stories;

• 30% Therapist talking too much about their own stuff during sessions;

• 25% Not feeling safe with office staff or in office setting;

• 21% Not available outside of session;

• 21% Not knowing about vacations or time off ahead of time for scheduling;

• 20% Concerns about confidentiality;

• 19% Boundary violations;

• 18% Therapist being afraid of my insiders (parts/alters);

• 16% Sudden movements;

• 15% Rejection of Littles;

• 13% Touch without permission, even if it was otherwise safe/appropriate;

• 13% Lack of eye contact;

• 12% Texting or taking calls from other people during sessions;

• 8% Not closing the office door during sessions;

• 3% Deliberate triggering to prove a point, access a particular alter, or test progress;

• 2% Inappropriate/unwanted religious discussion; and

• 2% Falling asleep during sessions.

Of participants asked, 18% had been abused by a therapist.

Of these, only 4% reported it.

Of those in therapy, 82% agree with their therapist on their treatment goals. Some of these goals include:

• 75% Decrease in Anxiety / Panic;

• 72% Improved Functioning;

• 67% Memory Work / Specific Trauma Processing;

• 67% Improved Internal Communication;

• 66% Compassion for My Self/ves;

• 62% Improved Mood;

• 58% Improved Cooperation;

• 41% Decrease Lost Time;

• 40% Maintain Functioning;

• 34% Remembering;

• 22% Stabilization and Reduce Self-Harm Behaviors;

• 15% Reduce Interpersonal Drama with Outside Relationships; and

• 14% Accepting the Diagnosis.

When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported:

• 50% Functional Multiplicity

• 5% Integration

Another 20% did not know what their therapist goal was or what they thought about integration or functional multiplicity.

12% did not think their therapist has ever heard of functional multiplicity.

When asked about their own goal for therapy, participants reported:

• 78% Functional Multiplicity

• 3% Integration

• 11% had not yet heard the term “functional multiplicity”

When asked directly if participants ultimately had some goal or vision for final or complete integration, 78% said no.

92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

PAGE SIX: Plural Perspectives

The final questions regarding plural perspectives became more specific in regards to identifying with or despite trauma, levels of dissociation, and functional multiplicity or ultimate integration. These questions arose from the efforts at uniting the Plural community as a resource for itself, for Plurals by Plurals, while also respecting individual experiences and understanding the perspectives of the clinical community. The options for responses to these questions came from the Plural community themselves, in exploring options of self-expression as a community culture and not just a clinical diagnosis:

The questions will be listed, with the participant percentage responses following.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I identify as:

• 35% DID

• 27% Plural

• 22% Multiple

• 5% Dissociative

• 3% Traumatized

• 2% It’s just baggage

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I am:

• 30% In the closet publicly, but have found support groups online;

• 19% I have told friends, but not my family;

• 12% Everyone knows, and I consider myself an advocate in some way;

• 10% I have told my friends and family, but carefully with good boundaries;

• 4% Everyone knows, but I am not safe enough to advocate culturally;

• 3% Still in the closet, but at least I “get it” and am trying to deal; and

• 2% So far in the closet that I still am not sure what’s going on yet.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to myself:

• 64% was a huge relief because everything finally made sense;

• 42% brutally hard, but at least I knew what was going on;

• 32% was positive because I found others like me;

• 18% was so hard / terrifying / confusing that I still can’t even think about it yet;

• 14% was a good thing because I finally got help; and

• 7% was not a big deal.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to others was:

• 37% mostly with others online who know what it’s like to be me;

• 29% not as big a deal as I thought it would be;

• 27% disappointing because I lost family or friend contacts because of it;

• 25% okay, and my friends were totally supportive;

• 24% easier with my friends than my family;

• 16% terrible because of the repercussions that followed;

• 14% dangerous, and caused me safety problems; and

• 13% terrifying, and totally backfired.

I believe my dissociation is:

• 38%  Traumagenic-Adaptive (I am this way because of trauma, and still use dissociation adaptively to deal with life but not necessarily intentionally and not as part of my intentional cultural expression.)

• 34%  Traumagenic (I am this way because of trauma.)

• 13%  Traumagenic-Cultural (I am this way because of trauma, feel mostly in control of my symptoms, and have intentionally adapted to it as a cultural lifestyle.)

• 2%  Endogenic (I was this way before I was born, but not because of trauma.)

• 1%   Exogenic (I was this way since I was born or grew up this way, but not because of trauma - that I know of yet.)

There were NO people who marked the following:

• 0%  Iatrogenic (I am this way because my therapist made me this way.)

• 0%  Iatrogenic-SocioCognitive (I am this way because I internalized and/or copied symptoms seen in friends or online, intentionally or unintentionally.)

• 0%  Iatrogenic-Cultural (I am this way because I internalized symptoms of others intentionally or unintentionally, but did intentionally learn/apply it as a lifestyle.)

Other responses included:

• Quoigenic - mixed origin

• Endogenic, but heavily and negatively impacted by trauma.

• Traumagenic-Neonatal. We developed this way before we were born because our maternal unit was being abused/traumatized while we were in the womb. We were "born ready" for plurality & problems/trauma.

• Traumagenic-SocioCognitive             

When I was young, I tended to identify with:

• 65% Books

• 31% Teachers

• 31% Movies

• 24% Video Games

• 23% Science Fiction Anything

• 21% Comics

• 20% Role Playing Games

• 17% Caregivers

• 17% Role Models

This final question was included because “fictives” are being commonly dismissed from participating in treatment, and we wanted to explain how technology has impacted the use of introjects in plural systems. Here is a quote from the History of DID talk we gave last year at the 2019 PPWC Conference:

This is not 1980.

It’s been more than forty years since 1980.

More than half of your survivors were barely even born in 1980.

DID is not going to look the same, sound the same, or present the same now as it did in 1980 because those clients grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s and 1960’s.   The cause may be the same, and the process may be the same, but the presentation comes in a whole new generation - four decades later.   Introjects look different, persecutors look different, and inner worlds look different.   That doesn’t make any of it less valid, and it is cruel and re-traumatizing for anyone to dismiss survivors because the culture we grew up in and had access to during childhood and adolescence was different than it was almost a hundred years ago.

Respectfully Submitted, thank you.

Dave is senior international faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute.  He teaches all levels of the SE training. He is also a part of Dr. Peter Levine’s initial legacy faculty being mentored by Dr. Levine to teach SE master classes.  Dave’s own BASE™: Relational Bodywork and Somatic Education Training™ for trauma practitioners is an integration of his decades of work in behavioral and physical health. As a therapist, teacher, consultant and mentor, Dave’s passion and commitment to deep healing guide his work.

An internationally recognized somatic psychotherapist, Dave brings his knowledge of anatomy, physiology and function of the body, and of psychological and relational dynamics to help clients improve their physical well being and psychological health. With 40 years of clinical practice, Dave provides a unique blend of clinical care for people healing from traumatic injuries and accidents, anxiety, back and neck pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, headaches, panic attacks and chronic pain. He uses a diverse array of traditional and complementary healing practices, integrating his understanding of the relationship between an individual’s emotional challenges, their family system dynamics and cultural issues. In therapy, a client may expect to talk, use body awareness and relaxation, trauma renegotiation, hands-on (when appropriate) interventions, movement and exercise to help in their healing process.

Family systems, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychobiology and a number of other psychotherapeutic theories inform Dave’s work as a psychotherapist. Understanding the relationship between physiology, body usage and psychology and emotions Dave works along an integrative continuum in his clinical psychotherapy work.

Dave received his bachelor’s degree in Somatopsychology from the University of Maryland and graduate degrees from Stanford University (Physical Therapy) and California Institute of Integral Studies (Psychology with a specialty in Somatic Psychology). He has been a professor in physical therapy and psychology,  and has been adjunct faculty at several colleges. Dave is on faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute and Ergos Institute.  He consults internationally with Somatic Experiencing® and BASE students and practitioners as well as others interested in the field of Somatics.

In the episode about Integration and Differentiation, the article that Dr. E found and was sharing is this one:, along with the “pie charts” she referenced during the podcast:

The drawings that our very first therapist did ages ago were something like this, in explaining internal and external walls, and what is helpful and healthy and what makes things more challenging once a survivor is out of danger:

Pam Stavropoulos, PhD

We welcome Pam Stavropoulos, PhD (Politics), Grad. Dip. Psychotherapy to the podcast to share about her research work with complex trauma at Blue Knot Foundation.

Specifically, she shares with us about the recently released 2019 updated Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Complex Trauma, which you can read HERE. It is available for download for free, with permission to share.

In the podcast, she shares about the research behind the updated guidelines, and also mentions therapist compentancies, which you can read HERE.

A list of selected publications can be viewed HERE.

Dr. Chefetz is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington, D.C.

He was President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) from 2002-2003, and is a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and Psychology. He is a faculty member at the Washington School of Psychiatry, the Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis, and the Washington Baltimore Center for Psychoanalysis. . He is a Certified Consultant at the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and is trained in Level I and II EMDR.

Dr. Chefetz was editor of “Dissociative Disorders: An Expanding Window into the Psychobiology of Mind” for the Psychiatric Clinics of North America, March 2006, “Neuroscientific and Therapeutic Advances in Dissociative Disorders,” Psychiatric Annals, August 2005, and “Multimodal Treatment of Complex Dissociative Disorders,” Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 20:2, 2000, as well as numerous journal articles on psychodynamic and psychoanalytic perspectives on trauma and dissociation. In 2015 he published Intensive Psychotherapy for Persistent Dissociative Process: The Fear of Feeling Real, with W.W. Norton, in their Interpersonal Neurobiology series.

His website is HERE.

Kathy Steele, MN, CS has been in private practice in Atlanta, Georgia since 1985, and is an Adjunct Faculty at Emory University. Kathy is a Fellow and a past President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), and is the recipient of a number of awards for her clinical and published works, including the 2010 Lifetime Achievement Award from ISSTD. She has authored numerous publications in the field of trauma and dissociation, including three books, and frequently lectures internationally on topics related to trauma, dissociation, attachment, and therapeutic resistance and impasses.

CLICK HERE for a link to the workbook mentioned in the podcast!

Christine Forner (Ba, Bsw, Msw, Rsw) has been in the healing profession in one form or another since the age of 16, when she worked on a crisis line for teens. Christine spent the first part of her career in the front lines working at local sexual assault centres, long term therapeutic setting and shelters for domestic violence survivours.

Since 2011, Christine has worked in her own private practice, which specializes in complex trauma and dissociative disorders. Christine has over thirty years of working with individuals with Trauma, Post Traumatic Stress Disorders, Traumatic Dissociation, Developmental Trauma and Dissociative Disorders, with specialized training in EMDR, Sensorimotor Psychotherapy, Psychotherapeutic Meditation techniques, Neurofeedback and Havening. Christine is also the current clinical supervisor for WayPoints, a center in Fort McMurry, Alberta that specializes in sexual assault and domestic violence. Christine teaches locally and at an international level on the issue of dissociation, complex trauma, and the intersection of dissociation and mindfulness.

Christine is the current President for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation.

Christine has also served on the board of the ISSTD since 2010 and was the ISSTD treasurer from 2011-2017.

She is the author of Dissociation, Mindfulness and Creative Meditations: Trauma informed practices to facilitate growth (Routledge, 2017).

As well as avidly working with those who have been hurt the most, Christine has dedicated her professional life to educating others on the logic, normality and commonality of dissociation. The summation of her work is to educate practitioners about the vital importance of their presence, patients and care with those who have been through the most severe and brutal injuries so that they get treated with dignity and compassion. The four qualities of presence, patience, dignity and compassion applied to every aspect of the therapeutic process can result in profound inner healing; something every human deserves to experience.

Rachel Lewis-Marlow is a somatically integrative psychotherapist, dually licensed as a Licensed Professional Counselor and a Massage and Bodywork Therapist. Rachel is also a Certified Advanced Practitioner in Sensorimotor Psychotherapy and has advanced training and 30 + years of experience in diverse somatic therapies.

She is the co-founder of the Embodied Recovery Institute which provides training in a trauma-informed, relationally oriented and somatically integrative model for eating disorders treatment.

In her private practice, Rachel specializes in working with people recovering from trauma, eating disorders, and dissociative disorders. She has extensive experience as a teacher and presenter, focusing on accessing the body’s unique capacity to give voice to the subconscious and to lay the foundation for healing and maintaining psychological and physical health.

She authored a chapter on the application of Sensorimotor Psychotherapy to eating disorders treatment in the recently published book, Trauma-Informed Approaches to Eating Disorders.

Daniel J. Siegel received his medical degree from Harvard University and completed his postgraduate medical education at UCLA with training in pediatrics and child, adolescent and adult psychiatry.  He served as a National Institute of Mental Health Research Fellow at UCLA, studying family interactions with an emphasis on how attachment experiences influence emotions, behavior, autobiographical memory and narrative.

Dr. Siegel is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine and the founding co-director of the Mindful Awareness Research Center at UCLA. An award-winning educator, he is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and recipient of several honorary fellowships. Dr. Siegel is also the Executive Director of the Mindsight Institute, an educational organization, which offers online learning and in-person seminars that focus on how the development of mindsight in individuals, families and communities can be enhanced by examining the interface of human relationships and basic biological processes. His psychotherapy practice includes children, adolescents, adults, couples, and families. He serves as the Medical Director of the LifeSpan Learning Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Blue School in New York City, which has built its curriculum around Dr. Siegel’s Mindsight approach.

Dr. Siegel has published extensively for the professional audience.  He is the author of numerous articles, chapters, and the internationally acclaimed text, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (2nd. Ed., Guilford, 2012).  This book introduces the field of interpersonal neurobiology, and has been utilized by a number of clinical and research organizations worldwide. Dr. Siegel serves as the Founding Editor for the Norton Professional Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology which contains nearly seventy textbooks.  The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of Well-Being (Norton, 2007) explores the nature of mindful awareness as a process that harnesses the social circuitry of the brain as it promotes mental, physical, and relational health. The Mindful Therapist: A Clinician's Guide to Mindsight and Neural Integration (Norton, 2010), explores the application of focusing techniques for the clinician’s own development, as well as their clients' development of mindsight and neural integration. Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology: An Integrative Handbook of the Mind (Norton, 2012), explores how to apply the interpersonal neurobiology approach to developing a healthy mind, an integrated brain, and empathic relationships. The New York Times bestseller Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human (Norton, 2016) offers a deep exploration of our mental lives as they emerge from the body and our relations to each other and the world around us. His New York Times bestseller Aware: The Science and Practice of Presence (Tarcher/Perigee, 2018) provides practical instruction for mastering the Wheel of Awareness, a life-changing tool for cultivating more focus, presence, and peace in one's day-to-day life. Dr. Siegel's publications for professionals and the public have been translated into over 40 forty languages.

Dr. Siegel’s book, Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation (Bantam, 2010), offers the general reader an in-depth exploration of the power of the mind to integrate the brain and promote well-being. He has written five parenting books, including the three New York Times bestsellers Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain (Tarcher/Penguin, 2014); The Whole-Brain Child: 12 Revolutionary Strategies to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind (Random House, 2011) and No-Drama Discipline: The Whole-Brain Way to Calm the Chaos and Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind (Bantam, 2014), both with Tina Payne Bryson, Ph.D., The Yes Brain: How to Cultivate Courage, Curiosity, and Resilience in Your Child (Bantam, 2018) also with Tina Payne Bryson, Ph.D., and Parenting from the Inside Out: How a Deeper Self-Understanding Can Help You Raise Children Who Thrive (Tarcher/Penguin, 2003) with Mary Hartzell, M.Ed.

Dr. Siegel's unique ability to make complicated scientific concepts exciting and accessible has led him to be invited to address diverse local, national and international groups including mental health professionals, neuroscientists, corporate leaders, educators, parents, public administrators, healthcare providers, policy-makers, mediators, judges, and clergy. He has lectured for the King of Thailand, Pope John Paul II, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Google University, and London's Royal Society of Arts (RSA). He lives in Southern California with his family.

You can see his website HERE.

The website for the Mindsight Institute is HERE.

The parts of the brain video referenced in the podcast is here:

Uploaded by Dr. Dan Siegel on 2017-08-09.

Kelly McDaniel, LPC, NCC, CSAT, author and psychotherapist, has been a licensed clinician since 2005.  In 2008, Gentle Path Press published McDaniel’s first book Ready to Heal: Breaking Free from Addictive Relationships.  Written for women, her book addresses the cultural and psychological issues that complicate love and sex. In Ready to Heal, Kelly created the concept of Mother Hunger® to explain the origin of problematic bonding. Each year since 2008, Kelly has been teaching both locally and nationally about women, relationships, and trauma, and in 2012, Gentle Path published the second edition of Ready to Heal with an expanded chapter dedicated to Mother Hunger.

In 2012, McDaniel collaborated with 9 other colleagues to write and publish Making Advances: A Comprehensive Guideline for Treating Female Love and Sex Addicts. In January 2019, she hosted a four-hour webinar sponsored by the Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals for 30 clinicians on the topic of Mother Hunger.

McDaniel’s new book Mother Hunger Living With a Broken Heart, informed by the past 10 years of clinical work, training, and neuroscience, describes the complex betrayal trauma that delivers a child’s first heartbreak.  The concept of Mother Hunger frames the lonely legacy of bonding to a compromised caregiver. McDaniel’s work is being used to treat women in various programs and facilities throughout the U.S. including The Center for Healthy Sex in Los Angelnces, The Meadows in Wickenburg, Arizona, and The Ranch in Tennessee.  McDaniel has offered trainings for clinicians through The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health, The Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas, Sante Center for Healing in Argyle, Texas, and Life Healing Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

McDaniel has successfully trademarked her Mother Hunger Intensives; custom curated, one on one healing experiences for women. You can see her website HERE.

Today on the podcast, we welcomed Pat Ogden, PhD, a pioneer in somatic psychology, is the Founder and Education Director of the Sensorimotor Psychotherapy Institute.

Dr. Ogden is an internationally recognized school specializing in somatic–cognitive approaches for the treatment of posttraumatic stress and attachment disturbances.  Her Institute, based in Colorado, has 19 certified trainers who conduct Sensorimotor Psychotherapy trainings of over 400 hours for mental health professionals throughout the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. The Institute has certified hundreds of psychotherapists throughout the world in this method.  She is co-founder of the Hakomi Institute, past faculty of Naropa University (1985-2005), a clinician, consultant, and sought after international lecturer.

Dr. Ogden is the first author of two groundbreaking books in somatic psychology: Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy and Sensorimotor Psychotherapy: Interventions for Trauma and Attachment (2015) , both published in the Interpersonal Neurobiology Series of W. W. Norton. She is currently working on a third book Sensorimotor Psychotherapy for Children, Adolescents and Families with Dr. Bonnie Goldstein. 

Her current interests include Sensorimotor Psychotherapy for groups, couples, children, adolescents, families; Embedded Relational Mindfulness, culture and diversity, challenging clients, the relational nature of shame, presence, consciousness and the philosophical/spiritual principles that guide Sensorimotor Psychotherapy.

You can learn more about Sensorimotor Psychotherapy on her website HERE.

We recently had Scarlet from the Labyrinth System as a guest on the podcast, and they were one of the very first YouTube channels educating about Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can see their channel HERE.

They mentioned the genetic test that helps you know which medications may be more helpful than others. It is called the GeneSight test, and you can see their website HERE.

We also spoke with Ashton Parker, from the Infinite System, who has started a collaborative website about Self-Help for those with Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can see the website HERE.