This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multiplicity (psychology) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
((WikiProject banner shell))
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Psychology NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
While working on this article, I plan to add more about the different kinds of multiplicity that exist (8 types), and expand on those. I also plan on expanding on what multiplicity is, and how it can be treated if it is having a negative impact. With sources of course. Echilcot12 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I plan on adding some more information from a book that has already been used as a source on this page. I will include more information about some of the important people in the history of multiplicity and how multiplicity came to be what it is today. I will post more specific information as I continue to work on the article. Echilcot12 (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the topic of this article? It seems to be some sort of a vague concept of a person having a different personality at different times/situations. And then there's suddenly the sentence about "Authors who have developed the idea that multiple personality is normal rather than pathological" -- which clearly seems to refer to MPD/DID, which is not the topic of this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Also not the topic of this article: "a group of people sharing a single body"/"headmates". We talked about that in the AfD ("The delete votes are solidly based on policy with respect to the orginal creation, but the good Colonel has transformed the article so its now about multiple persona as they are used by regular people."). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not an expert so I'm not going to define what this multiplicity is, but I'm just gonna say that I strongly advise editors to keep in mind what it is that they're writing about, and not derail into other topics. For example that draft^ mentions "amnesic switching" which is probably a quality of DID. Basically, don't use this article here as an alternative place where to write about different understandings/views of MPD/DID. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read through it but I think this paper talks about the topic of this article. ("One difficulty in describing the “self” is that there may not be a single thing to be described. Rather, recent research suggests that the self is a multiplicity of related, yet separable, processes and contents." ... "Put more positively, what these studies seem to be saying is that the self is a multiplicity, and thus the idea of localizing an entity called the “self” is a nonstarter.") — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
More possible sources?:
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Having had several decades of first-hand experience with mental illness and the condition of multiplicity in particular, I would ask the editors of this article to focus mainly on what the condition is/involves as well as the difference between it and MPD/DID. I would also ask you to "err" on the side of sharing as much information as possible, in the traditional Wikipedia format, rather than trying to be miserly/overly concise. Humans dealing with their condition(s) urgently need an unbiased source of information for themselves and their intimates. Also,unless you have dealt with mental illness personally (friends or family do NOT count as this), you have little to no idea how much stigma surrounds mental illness, especially the lesser-known types. Wikipedia is an ideal provider in helping to reduce this stigma through knowledge.Kailasa108 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Echilcot12, you have added text cited to a book without including the page numbers from the book. Please address this by adding the page numbers. You can do that by replacing every instance in the article of ((pn)) with ((rp|insert number)), for example, ((rp|115)). Please respond on this talk page so other editors know you have seen the posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a divide in the discussion of multiplicity between its view as solely a pathological/diagnosable condition and the belief that it also existing as a normal psychological phenomenon. Often times it is due to the belief that multiplicity is inherently mentally unhealthy, however there are great difficulties in discussing the great variation of multiplicity seeming to silence the experience of a different type of multiplicity.
This article should be able to neutrally describe different types and causes of multiplicity without confusing the reader. I am finding difficulty with this article because the article lacks information yet is already getting verbose.
Here is a quote from the article at the time of typing this comment: "Systems are developed throughout childhood before the ages of 6 to around 9 due to extensive trauma." This statement greatly contrasts the experiences of systems who gained members, for example, through modern/western tulpamancy or simply trauma at another age. The statement does not offer flexibility from this single viewpoint on systems, even if the author did not intend it to appear that way.
There is a lot of valuable information that can be shared from medical research about multiplicity from trauma, dissociation, and identity disorders that should be used to talk about relevant causes of multiplicity. The common belief among psychologists or medical practitioners that multiplicity is a pathology or harmful coping mechanism should be discussed, however when writing this article it needs to be written in a way that also acknowledges alternative experiences. The article most definitely includes the neurodivergent position, the discussion of pathological multiplicity should express more awareness of this and use language that does not contradict it.
More structure in the article on where to put information would also help in reading flow. Combining structure with conscientious wording would allow topics to be written with less need to clarify what cause of multiplicity is or isn't being discussed.
Instead of having the 3 sections "History," "Systems," and "Media Portrayal" which are not well-structured internally and bounce between what is focused on, there could be (not necessarily in this order) sections that go something like:
·Terminology, both academically and informally ·Disorders, in which the text would be assumed to focus on diagnoses and their criteria in the context of psychology and its opinions without needing to constantly refer back to neurodivergence, ·Causes, (with a lot of internal organization!) talking about the different ways one becomes a system, including those leading to diagnoses, but also it happening without any stressors, intentionally becoming a system, etc, ·Neurodivergence, discussing the opinion and experience that having head mates is not inherently pathological, that systems that were formed due unintentionally to stressors or intentionally to cope aren't either, what matters is working towards the well being and functioning of the person, ·History, about the recording/evidence of this phenomenon, worldwide cultural/spiritual beliefs and change over time ·Theories, about division of the mind/consciousness, ·Media Portrayal, stereotyping and its consequences
This phenomenon is also lacking in academic description that encompasses the huge diversity of this phenomenon. I am familiar with multiplicity in medicine and neurodivergency however I do not know about this in great detail, I wish I could add more information about eg dissociative identity myself and make sure it does not clash with the rest of the article. It's unfortunate a lot of neurodivergent information sources are not academic enough for Wikipedia.
If anyone adds info or restructures the article take my thoughts into consideration, if someone has ideas that don't involve a lot organizing I would be interested. I do intend to do this myself in the near future, without information loss. CastellamareAsh (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastellamareAsh (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Ribáry, Gergő, et al. "Multiplicity: An explorative interview study on personal experiences of people with multiple selves." Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017): 938. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468408/ - explores multiplicity(rather than DID specifically) as a distinct thing.
https://aeon.co/ideas/what-we-can-learn-about-respect-and-identity-from-plurals - Probably the best source, clearly takes up how plural communities view themselves as people, distinct from DID etc.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/otherkin/ - Clearly takes up plurality and plural communities
Boag, Simon. "Addressing mental plurality: Justification, objections and logical requirements of strongly partitive accounts of mind." Realism and Psychology. Brill, 2011. 727-754. -https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291146686_Addressing_mental_plurality_Justification_objections_and_logical_requirements_of_strongly_partitive_accounts_of_mind - potential accounts of plurality? Probably too heavy to use.
https://narratively.com/the-mystical-mind-sharing-lives-of-tulpamancers/ - association between tulpas and plurality
https://movieweb.com/split-movie-removed-netflix-petition/ - points out that plurality as a community exists(in parallel with DID) and also talks about Split controversy for the media portrayal part
Luhrmann, Tanya Marie, et al. "Beyond trauma: a multiple pathways approach to auditory hallucinations in clinical and nonclinical populations." Schizophrenia Bulletin 45.Supplement_1 (2019): S24-S31. - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330811751_Beyond_Trauma_A_Multiple_Pathways_Approach_to_Auditory_Hallucinations_in_Clinical_and_Nonclinical_Populations - A study alluding to the idea that all multiplicity isn't caused by trauma (mentions dissociation/DID in that regard) Seteleechete (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
These sources do not really fulfill WP:RELIABILITY for a topic like this; these sources seem to skew heavily towards pop culture sources, which makes me question the WP:VERIFIABILITY of these sources. birdn4t0r (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has me a bit confused.
As per the previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) the notability of this article is in relation to the general psychological concept of Multiplicity. Whereas (and I recognise that this is a sensitive area) the article seems to focus on a subculture, or a certain neurodiversity community, and how they perceive Multiplicity.
This in itself may be worth an article on Wikipedia if it's notable and sources exist. But, what seems to have happened is that an article on a psychological concept has been effectively repurposed to cover a concept that it was not initially intended to. Further, a lot of the content (for example the entire "Systems" section that I Just removed) seemed to be the result of Original Research, without sources.
I think there's certainly an NPOV issue here, which requires some attention. The last year's worth of edits seem to be drawing the article further away from it's original focus.
--Vitalis196 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I, too, am feeling confusion - because of the discussion here. Previously, I have mainly used Wikipedia as a start place or "jumping off point" to learn about a particular topic. The discussion thus far results in my thinking that an article can only cover one aspect or point of the matter at hand. I disagree with that view. For a quick example of my thinking, look up the Wikipedia article on "animal rights". Following the "one article/one subject" approach, I might miss out on a topic's multiple aspects and/or have to bounce around to multiple articles to chase down one related aspect at a time. Ugh. If nothing else, if the amount of info on the concept of psychological multiplicity becomes unwieldy, the related aspects should/could at least be listed in the "See Also" section of the original article. (That amounts to my conditional agreement with Setellchete.) On the other hand, I disagree with a couple of Vagabondsun's statements. Firstly, an expert's input (if nothing else as from a referenced source) is critical. In under two minutes, I was able to find over 2 dozen articles on psychological multiplicity, by psychologists and/or their organizations. While it might currently prove difficult to actually find an expert to provide up-to-the-minute info on the subject (the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing domestic terrorism here in the USA has more citizens receiving psychological therapy than ever before); but maybe an educator could be a source. Regardless, after the main aspect is covered,there could be additional sections on: 1) groups and organizations dealing with mental health (such as the CDC, NAMI, or MHA) and their view of the topic could be briefly included; as well as 2) a mention of those folks/groups who criticize the concept altogether.Kailasa108 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on psychology, but as someone who knows a fair number of plural people I thought I'd chime in. It seems to me that there are really two related issues here. The first one is a scoping issue. Simply put, the concepts we're dealing with here have boundaries that are less than well defined. DID overlaps with psychological multiplicity, and both overlap with the cultural aspects involved. Currently, we have no article other than this one dealing with the cultural aspects, so it's getting used for those despite the fact that some people think they're out of scope. The second issue is a sourcing issue. There is a dearth of reliable sources about plurality/multiplicity. There are tons of sources, but by Wikipedia's standards, they aren't reliable. That situation appears to be slowly changing, but until it changes more fully, Wikipedia will not be the place to adjust the subject in depth. Note that some people in past discussions I've read about this have painted this as a WP:FRINGE issue, and I don't really think that's a fair characterization - a lot of the experiences involved here are not the sort of thing that can be scientifically studied, and many of the aspects that can be are just starting to have studies come out. Nevertheless, the general WP:V problem remains. Tamwin (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion, but I noticed that the article lacks the Expert template; should I add it in? birdn4t0r (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw that the "neutrality" of the article is under question. I feel those that are questioning this need THEMSELVES to provide more information as to why they feel this way. Currently, from the previous posts on the matter, it would almost seem as if a topic should NOT be included in Wikipedia unless there is/are published/recognized source(s) that refute or criticise the information shared in the article. Kailasa108 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)kailasa108
I was dismayed to see that the article is listed as "low importance"; even if that ranking is based on its current poor style. To me, that is tantamount to a male, civilian, invertebrate biologist ranking an article on sexual assault in the American military as "unimportant" because it was poorly written. I, myself, have educated a number of therapists about psychological multiplicity, because it is not widely known (enough). Because of that, I ask that this article be given at least a "mid" rating. Kailasa108 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I have decided to make this section to try to summarize what was mentioned in the previous sections, and give what I think is a fair assessment of what to do. Essentially from what I've seen the main arguments boils down to a few things 1. what is the topic? from the name and current writing of the page it seems to be about plurality/multiplicity which was designed by people with conditions such as DID OSDD-1 and OSDD-2 to essentially be a blanket term for those who experience the state of being 2 or more entities inside one psychical body, due to some considering the psychological diagnoses to not cover all possible origins/ways to be plural. but due to it having the psychology tag it could also be interpreted as a more strict purely psychological version of the idea instead. 2. lack of neutrality. due to the disagreements between those who identify as Plural and psychological experts and those in the psychological field as a whole it is very difficult to find a neutral ground that takes both views into account. If it's trying to be about the plural community then it should focus on that, and the latter more psychological view should be mostly put in the DID page of Wikipedia. if it is supposed to be a purely psychological lense on the issue then this page should reflect that and multiplicity/plurality should get its own page most likely not under psychology. 3. lack of sources. due to how diverse and ununified plurality/multiplicity is it is very difficult to find sources that match Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. This also goes for experts due to it being a culture that has a large level of distrust for psychological experts it's hard to find experts which would be unbiased in this topic. in conclusion: this page tries to cover several interconnected issues which should probably either be different pages altogether or different subsections of the same page which would be about it without a psychology focus, and due to the heated nature of the topic and the decentralization of the community surrounding it is hard to find unbiased sources and experts which make Wikipedia standards. I would personally say the best option would be to have two pages, one exclusively about it from a scientific/psychological angle and one about it from the angle of those who identify as it and what they say. since the two clash so much trying to find compromise between the two would most likely anger both sides. on the inability to find good sources and experts I would say that finding unbiased sources and experts is going to be the most difficult but most nessecary part of this. Aeonic maiden (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Aeonic maiden (talk) 10:15 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The bulk of this article was removed in 2 edits in 2021 without attempts to improve it as discussed on this page. As someone without this condition but familiar with advocates of it from social media, I personally think the article deserves to exist in a more complete form with most of the original content before those edits, preferably with many of the improvements discussed on this talk page. I would say it should focus on the (admittedly very recent and lacking many "reliable" sources) grassroots movement to normalize plural systems as a not necessarily pathological mode of human psychology, as opposed to just the "rights movement" of people who accept a DID diagnosis. One fictional example can be found in the character(s) of "the Gang" in the novel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel), which as a non-expert I think is relatively unique in its portrayal of multiplicity as a potentially useful cognitive tool and not just a disorder to be remedied. If this article is being merged into the DID page, I think the idea of multiplicity/plural systems deserves a separate (or much-expanded "Rights Movement") section discussing this idea, as well as at least mentioning its relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_model_of_personality and attempts to intentionally induce similar mental states like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:8300:71:3961:2684:4CBF:A032 (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The article should be renamed "Plurality (psychology)" as plural is a much more common usage by those within relevant communities than multiplicity. Multiplicity should still redirect to this article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatIsAPoggers (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that Multiplicity (psychology) be renamed and moved to Dissociative multiplicity. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)) . Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. |
Multiplicity (psychology) → Dissociative multiplicity – The vast majority of academic sources that I'm able to find treat the experience of one person experiences themselves as more than one person as a form of dissociation, rather than as something unique. The phrase typically used for this is dissociative multiplicity (or simply as multiplicity), and that seems to be the subject of this article. There's actually substantial writings about this sort of phenomenon in children and it's the subject of Ph.D. theses among other sorts of things. However, the psychological literature tends to not use the term "plurality" to refer to this phenomenon; it's generally either "multiplicity" or "dissociative multiplicity". WP:TITLEDAB indicates that we should prefer to use the natural disambiguation over a parenthetical disambiguation, and the proper academic term seems to be the natural title here, so I propose that we change this page's name to Dissociative multiplicity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)