Transcript: Episode 154
154. 2019 PPWC Survey Results
Welcome to the System Speak podcast. If you would like to support our efforts at sharing our story, fighting stigma about Dissociative Identity Disorder, and educating the community and the world about trauma and dissociation, please go to our website at www.systemspeak.org, where there is a button for donations and you can offer a one time donation to support the podcast or become an ongoing subscriber. You can also support us on Patreon for early access to updates and what’s unfolding for us. Simply search for Emma Sunshaw on Patreon. We appreciate the support, the positive feedback, and you sharing our podcast with others. We are also super excited to announce the release of our new online community - a safe place for listeners to connect about the podcast. It feels like any other social media platform where you can share, respond, join groups, and even attend events with us, including the new monthly meetups that start this month. Go to our web page at www.systemspeak.org to join the community. We're excited to see you there.
[Short piano piece is played, lasting about 20 seconds]
This episode is about the results of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference survey results about common survivor and plural experiences. The trigger warning for this episode is that it is very monotonous, in that it is a reporting of percentages and numbers, given over and over, as we share the survey results. And, while nothing is discussed at all, there are mentions to specific kinds of abuse, because the ACEs questionnaire was included in the survey.
So, if this information is not interesting to you, or at all concerns you, as far as triggering content, you can skip this episode. Otherwise, you’re welcome to listen, or if it’s easier to youto read or follow along, you can read this on the blog at systemspeak.org. As always, please care for yourself during and after listening to this podcast. Thank you.
As part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference last year, we helped with a survey with results to be shared in 2020, at this year's conference. 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 ACEs 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. Participants were informed that the survey results would be shared during the 2020 PPWC Conference. To continue this survey, participants had to agree that they understood this, and that they were over age 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 experience, 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 systemwide self-care was encouraged before, during, and after participating in the survey.
This survey was designed by plural’s 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. While obviously vast, and covering of multiplicity of areas, that would be too many variables for a research project. This was again the general areas of experience that plurals themselves wanted to know more about, and were interested in learning in regards to shared experiences.
This particular 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, “I am over the age of 18”, “I understand the screening tools usedin this survey are for data gathering only, and not meant to be diagnostic in nature”, “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 when and how to seek support if I need help”, “I understand I can quit the survey at any time”, “I understand the data gathering from this survey is non-identifiable, and that the survey is done with SSL encryption”, “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 other 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”, “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 Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs, 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, mis-diagnosis experiences, treatment goals, and integration perspectives.
The final page of the survey was cultural, about the personal experiences, and identification of or with 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 the 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.
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, Canada, United States, Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Iceland, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Salvania, Austria, Czeck Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Morocco, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Napal, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Japan, 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 the 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.
The results of this survey are as follows, and all of this information can be found on our blog at systemspeak.org.
The first page of the survey resulted in only participants who answered “yes” to the first seven questions that we mentioned about already, were to be included in the results below.
The second page about demographics, listed the countries as I shared. The second page was about demographics…I have already listed the countries represented.
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. Four percent listed “other” as their identified gender, and reported that they did not want to answer. Please note, 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 specifically. The remaining percent were decimals in the above percentages, and also will be in the case with the remaining results below.
In regards to the actual body age, people reported 43% were ages 25-34, 20% were ages 18-24, 16% were ages 35-44, 15% 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 their father’s education, 26% reported that their father had highschool education only, 21% had graduate level education, 20% had bachelor’s level education, 17% had some college, but no degree, 7% had an associates degree, 6% did not complete highschool.
In regards to the participants' mother's education, 25% had a highschool degree only, 18% had some college, but no degree, 18% had a bachelor's degree, 14% had graduate level education, 11% had an associate’s degree, and 11% did not complete high school.
For participants themselves, 35% have some college, but no degree, 22% have a bachelor degree, 16% have a highschool degree only, 11% have a graduate degree, 9% have an associate’s degree, and 4% have not finished highschool.
For context, remember that 20% of the participants were in the age of 18 to 24. However, that said, more participants have finished highschool 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 history impacted their educational efforts, participants reported 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 that their trauma impacted their education a great deal; 7% felt they were able to complete their education as far as they wanted; 6% felt their trauma moderately impacted their education; 5% felt their education was impacted by trauma some, but they were able to deal with it; 4% felt their trauma impacted their education only 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 of some sort; 8% of participants reported they used social benefits as do others in their household; 3% of participants reported that they do not use them themselves, but someone 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 10 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.
The survey included questions about sleep, eating, and exercise. In regards to sleep, participants reported that 54% do not exercise at all, either due to preference or medical condition; 21% exercised twice a week; 13% exercised once a week; 10% exercised five times a week or more. No other responses were recorded on that question.
In regards to eating, participants reported that 36% eat twice a day, 24% eat three times a day, 15% eat small 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 is inside just grazes throughout the day. In addition, 35% reported they struggle to eat five to six days a week, 20% reported struggles to eat one to two days a week, 20% do not struggle to eat at all, 18% struggle to eat three to four days a week, 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, because they have help with medication. Twenty-two percent sleep six to eight hours without medication, 24% sleep four to five hours without medication, 21% sleep three to four hours without the use of medication, 4% sleep one to three hours without medication. In addition, 24% rarely have nightmares but nightmares, 22% have nightmares one to two nights a week, 18% have nightmares but not so much since starting therapy, 15% feel like they have nightmares still every night, 11% have nightmares three to four nights a week, and 7% have nightmares five to six nights a week.
The DES was included for context of what issues participants struggle with, and which populations were completing the survey. It was not used for diagnostic purposes, nor were the results saved in any way according to specific participants. Rather, the algorithm of responses for this page per participant, but only reported in the results of the page.
In the percentage of participants who scored each range, so we are 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 a diagnosis in any way. Participants were not informed of their individual score, nor was this reported to us in any way. Individual DES-II scores were not reported or disclosed to anyone in any way.
Other participants in this survey, 89% scored about 30 on the DES-II, 6% scored between 27 and 30, 4% scored between 24 and 26, 1% of participants scored 23 or below.
The high scores were expected due to the population receiving notice and participating in this survey, especially as they were primarily those already in treatment for or were aware of their own issues of trauma and dissociation. Please note that the higher scores, 30 and above, only indicate high levels of dissociation, and are not indicative of a 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.
Links for more information about the DES-II, which you can learn about on the ISSTD website, are included on the blog.
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 on our bodies. 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.
Four percent 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 unspecified reasons. The positive results endorsed by those participants who completed these sets of questions are given as follows.
Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you? Eighty percent of participants answered yes.
Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often act in a way that made you afraid that you may be physically hurt? Seventy-eight percent of the participants answered yes.
Did an adult or person, at least five years older than you, ever touch or fondle you, or have touched your body in a sexual way? Sixty-six percent of participants answered yes.
Did an adult or person, at least five years older than you, ever attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? Fifty-two percent of participants said yes.
Did you often or very often feel that no one in your family loved you, or thought you were important or special? Seventy-one percent of participants said yes.
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? Seventy percent of participants said yes.
Did you often or very often feel that you don’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you? Forty-four percent of participants said yes.
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 reason? Thirty-six percent of participants said yes.
Did a parent or other adult in your household often, or very often, push, grab, slap, or throw something at you? Fifty-three percent of participants said yes.
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? Forty-five percent of participants said yes.
Was your mother or stepmother often, or very often, pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her? Twenty-three percent of participants said yes.
Was your mother or stepmother sometimes, often, or very often, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard? Fifteen percent of participants said yes.
Was your mother or stepmother sometimes, often, or very often, threatened with a gun, a knife, or other weapon? Four percent of participants said yes.
Were your parents separated or divorced? Forty-nine percent of participants said yes.
Did you live with anyone who was a problem-drinker, or alcoholic, or used street drugs? Forty-seven percent of participants said yes.
Was a household member depressed, or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide? Seventy-two percent of participants said yes.
Did a household member go to prison? Fifteen percent of participants said yes.
It is interesting to note that 7% of participants reported that they wish 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 mother’s as thee, or one of thee, primary abusers, even against their father or stepfather.
Page five addressed common therapeutic experiences for survivors. 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. Fifty-eight percent of participants were in therapy at the time; 10% had been in therapy, 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% had been, 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 were actively looking for a therapist; 3% were, but had to stop because of schedule conflicts; 1% were, but not because they chose 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% had been with one therapist for the entirety of their treatment. The remainder of participants had not yet found a therapist.
Of these, when asked why they had seen so many therapists, participants responded as follows. Please note, due to multiple experiences with different therapists, participants could report more than one reason, so these percentages do not add up to 100.
Forty-eight percent 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 in the experiences of aging out of a particular school or program - the therapist not being able to handle gender identity, or sexual orientation issues, being too anxious to keep appointments, finances, or 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 hadn’t gotten a proper diagnosis with just one therapist, 16% had to see four therapists before they were diagnosed properly, 5% saw six therapists, 3% saw more than eight therapists, 1% saw more than 15 therapists prior to getting an accurate diagnosis.
When asked to share their diagnosis, if they felt safe doing so, the participant percentages were 53% were diagnosed with DID, 15% were still not sure, 12% were waiting on results of testing for a diagnostic appointments, 8% were diagnosed with complex PTSD, 5% were diagnosed with PTSD, 4% were diagnosed with DDNOS, 3% were diagnosed with 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 experiences of SRA, participants shared that 56% did not know what the terms were, and did not think that applied to them; 23% knew what the terms were, but also knew it did not apply to them; 7% preferred the term RAMC -- ritual abuse mind control -- 5% preferred the term SRA -- satanic ritual abuse -- 4% preferred just the general term of trafficking; 3% preferred the term RA -- ritual abuse -- and 1% preferred the term SRAMC -- 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 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 bipolar disorder, 6% have another mood disorder diagnoses, 3% have another personality disorder diagnosis.
When asked about their best therapeutic experiences, participants shared, and again, 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 was good therapy when they feel connected, 49% said the best therapeutic experience is when the therapist responds to other inside (Alters or Parts or Personalities), 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% 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 also 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 or for check in or for 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 that therapist’s use, participants responded 87% listening, 72% reassurance, 64% playing together, 62% art, 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 it 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. Sixty-five percent not knowing how to help me, 56% not listening to me, 39% therapists saying my stories were too hard or too much or too intense for them, 37% therapists refusing to talk to Others inside, Alter or Parts, 32% discounting my stories, 30% therapist talking too much about their own stuff during sessions, 25% not feeling safe with office staff or an 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, 16% sudden movements, 15% rejection of Littles, 13% touch without permission, even if it was safe or 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% deliberately triggering to prove a point, access a particular Alter, or test progress, 2% inappropriate or unwanted religious discussion, and 2% falling asleep during sessions.
Of participants asked, 18% had been abused by a therapist at some point in their treatment. Of these, only 4% reported it. Of those in therapy, 82% agree with their therapist on treatment goals. Some of these goals include 75% decrease in anxiety or panic, 72% have the goal of improve functioning, 67% are working on memory work or specific trauma processing, 67% are working on improved internal communication, 66% are working on compassion for myselves, 62% are working on improved mood, 58% are working on improved cooperation, 41% are working on decreasing the amount of lost time, 40% are working on maintaining functioning, 34% are working on remembering, 22% are working on stabilization and reducing self-harm behaviors, 15% are working on reducing interpersonal drama with outside relationships, and 14% are working to accept the diagnosis.
When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported 50% of them have a therapist with the goal of functional multiplicity. Only 5% reported their therapist has the goal of integration. Another 20% did not know what their therapist’s goal was, or what they thought about integration as opposed to functional multiplicity. Twelve percent did not think their therapist has ever heard of functional multiplicity.
When asked about their own goal for therapy, participants reported 78% of participants reported functional multiplicity as their goal for therapy. Only 3% reported their goal for therapy was integration. And, 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% of participants said “no”, 92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.
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 by uniting the plural community as a resource for itself, for plurals, by plurals, while also respecting individual experiences, and understanding their perspectives of the clinical community.
The options for these responses, to these questions, came from the plural community themselves, in exploring options for 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% reported DID, 27% reported plural, 22% reported multiple, 5% reported dissociative, 3% reported traumatized, and 2% dismissed it as baggage.
In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I am… 30% reported they are in the closet publicly, but have found a support group online; 19% report they have told friends, but not their family; 12% report that everyone knows, and they consider themselves an advocate; 10% report that they have told their friends and family, but carefully, with good boundaries; 4% report that everyone knows, but they are not safe enough to be an advocate culturally; 3% are still in the closet, but they get it, and are trying to deal with it; 2% are still unsure of what’s going on.
In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to myself -- 60% reported it was a huge relief, because everything finally made sense; 42% reported it was brutally hard, but at least I knew what was going on; 32% reported that it was positive, because they found others like them; 18% reported that it was so hard and terrifying and confusing that they still can’t think about it; 14% reported that it was a good thing, because they finally got help; and 7% reported it was not a big deal.
In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to others was… 37% reported that this was mostly with others online who know what it’s like; 29% reported it was not as big of a deal as they thought it would be; 27% report that it was disappointing, because they lost a family or friend because of it; 25% reported that it was okay and their friends were supportive; 24% reported it was easier with their friends than with their family; 16% reported it was terrible because of the repercussions that followed; 14% reported it was dangerous and caused safety problems; and 13% reported it as terrifying and totally backfired.
I believe my dissociation is … 38% chose traumagenic, adaptive -- meaning, I am this way, because of trauma, and I still use dissociation adaptively to deal with life, but not necessarily intentionally, and not as part of my intentional cultural expression. Thirty-four percent chose traumagenic -- I am this way because of trauma. Thirteen percent chose traumagenic cultural -- I am this way because of trauma, feel mostly in control of my symptoms, and have attentionally adapted to it as a cultural lifestyle. Two percent chose endogenic -- I was this way before I was born, but not because of trauma. One percent chose 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, zero participants, endorsed that they were plural because of iatrogenic, because of the therapist making them this way, because iatrogenic socio-cognitive, because of internalized or copied symptoms seen in friends or online, or iatrogenic cultural, because of internalized symptoms applied as a lifestyle. No one reported those three.
Other responses included a mixed origin, endogenic, but heavily negatively impacted by trauma, traumagenic neo-natal, developed this way because our maternal unit was being abused and traumatized in the womb. We were born ready for plurality. 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.
We included those categories in that question, because of the common experience reported by survivors, of fictives being rejected by therapists. However, what we would like to point out for therapists to consider, and for the clinical world to become more inclusive in their responses, as we pointed out in the history of DID lecture at last years PPWC conference, which we will link to in the blog.
We hope that is helpful, both to survivors feeling familiar, and comfortable, that there are others like them, and help in giving clinicians a taste in some of the cultural experience, as far as the perspective of lived experience. While this was not a specific research project, we do believe it could be very useful in changing some of the language that clinicians use, as well as a starting place for future clinical research.
Thank you.
[Break]
Thank you for listening. Your support really helps us feel less alone while we sort through all of this and learn together. Maybe it will help you in some ways too. You can connect with us on Patreon. And join us for free in our new online community by going to our website at www.systemspeak.org. If there's anything we've learned in the last four years of this podcast, it's that connection brings healing. We look forward to connecting with you.