![]() ![]() Despite decades of efforts, the ISSTD has failed the DID community in spectacular fashion. In short, the ISSTD’s trauma model of DID is bad for people with DID, it’s bad for people incorrectly diagnosed with DID, it’s bad for the falsely accused, and it’s bad for the public at large. This is all beside the fact that many people are incorrectly diagnosed with DID in the first place, and then tragically endure harmful therapeutic paradigms that iatrogenically create the disorder. In fact, updating their views to align with the state of the science would require that they face the reality that such efforts cause false memories, and this is why we believe the ISSTD will never abandon the trauma model. After all, if DID can occur without trauma, it makes little sense for therapy sessions to focus on “recovering” and “processing” traumatic memories that may not even exist. If the ISSTD were to acknowledge that they have been incorrect about the role of trauma in the development of DID, they would be forced to revise their treatment guidelines. In fact, the ISSTD has opted to accuse members of the DID community by name of faking their condition rather than recognize the inadequacy of the trauma model. Organizations like the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), whose entire foundation is built upon the trauma model of DID, rightfully see this emerging understanding of the etiology of DID as a significant threat. ![]() In fact, DID can develop in the complete absence of trauma. ![]() ![]() In other words, under this new paradigm, DID isn’t simply caused by trauma, but trauma may be one of several factors that can lead to DID. This “transtheoretical” model posits that there are probably multiple pathways to the development of DID, marked by variables such as sleeping difficulties, intrusive thoughts, poor self-regulation, distress, fantasy proneness, trauma, attribution errors (eg, believing a thought or internal voice did not come from you), as well as social and cultural factors. Recently, a new theoretical model of DID has emerged which attempts to explain how DID develops, drawing not only from the literature used to support the trauma model, but also from the evidence in favor of a sociocognitive model of DID development. This may be why no empirically-supported treatment for DID currently exists. But the trauma model has several shortcomings, including failing to account for a number of factors that appear to contribute to the development of DID. In fact, since the 80s, many in the field have considered the science settled on this issue - they believe they have figured out what causes DID and how best to treat it. Therefore, the more important question is: What causes it?įor decades, the dissociative disorders field has unwaveringly subscribed to the trauma model of DID - the notion that DID is a result of trauma, particularly childhood sexual abuse. It is impossible to dispute that some people experience the symptoms that characterize DID as codified in the DSM. We believe the question of whether DID is “real” or “fake” to be counterproductive. In this letter, we wish to share with you our beliefs surrounding Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), the dangers surrounding the diagnosis and common therapies used to treat it, and the controversies surrounding some of the prevalent researchers and clinicians who claim to be at the forefront of DID research and treatment. If you read further you will learn why.Īs the leadership of Grey Faction, we’d like to take this opportunity to be as clear as possible about what we believe, who we oppose, and what our ultimate goal is. We at Grey Faction in no way see ourselves as your adversary, despite the misconceptions that may exist. First and foremost, we want to thank you for having an open mind and deciding to read this letter. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |