(Part 2) Best books about dissociative disorders according to redditors

Courtesy ping back to /u/NutellaIsDelicious and /u/Falunel

I have no idea what you're talking about. What you're describing is not Dissociative Identity Disorder, Schizophrenia, or Psychosis.

You're referencing blogs trying to use that for backing your opinion? That really helps your argument about as much as a bucket would stop a tsunami.

Since psychosis seems to be your main argument, this might be a worthwhile read for you since your descriptions mean you have no idea what psychosis is...

Parker, G. F. (2014). DSM-5 and psychotic and mood disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(2), 182-190.

You also bring up Schizophrenia, again, you're off mark but you would be less so than saying psychosis.

Tandon, R., Gaebel, W., Barch, D. M., Bustillo, J., Gur, R. E., Heckers, S., ... & Van Os, J. (2013). Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5. Schizophrenia research, 150(1), 3-10.

Regarding confusing schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, you're not alone. The former is sometimes a misdiagnosed latter. There's been work done to help differentiate them better, which you can read about here.

Ellason, J. W., & Ross, C. A. (1995). Positive and negative symptoms in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: A comparative analysis. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 183(4), 236-241.

If you want a good description of DID, so you can understand it better. This is a great read...

Ross, C. A. (1997). Dissociative identity disorder: Diagnosis, clinical features, and treatment of multiple personality . John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lastly, go give this a good read.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

****
Just to explain something here, Jung and Freud were quite the pioneers in this field. Both were born in the 1800s and died last century. They were elderly at the onset of WWII. Though much of their work influenced works today, most of what they've written has been by-and-large discredited by modern research. Both names are a bit of a joke when people bring them up in a scientific debate in university classes, from personal experience. They both lived before electricity was 'a thing'.

Using Jung or Freud as your basis is like saying a car developed by Henry Ford is better than a Tesla. Ford lived about the same time frame, and I'm sorry to tell you, technology has advanced past the Model T. It was a scientific marvel in it's time, and paved the way for things to come, but the basis of what it was is extremely outdated and admired solely for it's pioneering in antiquity only.

Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Henry Ford were pioneers, but their advances are no longer the technology and understanding of today. We've learned so much more and advanced so much farther. Neuroscience, psychology, and engineering were in their infancy in those times. Things have come a long way, their advances have become obsolete from further advances in understanding.

https://www.amazon.com/Ego-States-Helen-H-Watkins/dp/0393702596

Watkins & Watkins are important theorists and practitioners for what my hypnotherapist does

Hey there, sorry to hear about your accident and subsequent return of symptoms.

This book is geared toward clinicians, but it was the first one that came to mind. It may have some helpful information for your situation: http://www.amazon.com/The-Body-Bears-Burden-Dissociation/dp/0415641527 (check your local library for a copy, that is where I came across this originally)

I hope that this helps, and I wish you strength and support in your recovery!

That's interesting to me, you know why my amnesia causes so much stress it make me feel crazy, out of control, weak, scared. It's not fun. I've taken dozens of pills in a suicide attempt, I've assaulted people, and/or threatened to kill them, lost jobs, deleted social media, slept with random people, things disappear, and I have been called a liar because I dissociate my actions for my entire life.


I read an r/CPTSD thread one time about if anyone else wished they had cancer because it would concretely validate their pain, it would be something they could physically point to and say see, "I did have it rough." To me this reads like that. I've had cancer twice those people were nuts for asking for it.


Do you know why Amnesia is such a disconcerting thing, because it messes with our continuity of experience, which in turn leaves us fully unable to synthesize or realize said experience? Let's take a look at some things, I like perceptual theory as a lens here for how we experience the world.


> Alter personalities are complex; they probably do not develop from a single trauma or without substantial preparatory experience and psychological mediation. Derealization, on the other hand, is a less complex psychological process; this alteration in how the world is perceived is a more immediate response to current sensory input. These two observations about alters and derealization reflect the fact that dissociation is characterized by two quite different phenomena: (1) alters and (2) perceptual alterations. Based on his perceptual theory of dissociation, Beere (1995) asserted that the creation of an alter identity is an order of phenomenon different from dissociative perceptual experience (though, in the process of living, these two phenomena often occur together). Amnesia is a third type of dissociative phenomenon that stands on its own (as well as being strongly linked to alter identities). In short, the domain of dissociation has three conceptual foci: dissociative perception, alters, and amnesia. This chapter will present a theoretical explanation of these phenomena: the fi rst theoretical explanation pertains to dissociative perception; the second has to do with the functioning of the self-system and how that leads to depersonalization, amnesia, and alter identities in fugue and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

18.1 DISSOCIATIVE PERCEPTION

Beere’s (1995) perceptual theory of dissociation asserts that dissociative perception stems from a blocking-out of the perceptual background. Experience generally presents itself whole, but it has the following structure: (1) I, (2) having this mind, (3) in this body, (4) in this world, (5) all of which are in time, perceive this figure in this ground (Figure 18.1). These five components comprise the background framework for all perceptual experience; each of us takes this figure-ground-background organization of perceptual experience for granted. The term background defines these five ever-present components of the perceptual framework. Everyday experience involves a constant flow of different figure/ground perceptions; time, world, body, mind, and identity usually reside in the background. During dissociation, however, the background is lost or loses its constancy. Because the lived-integration of figure-ground-background constitutes meaningful lived-experience, the rupture of this lived-integration makes dissociative experience weird, bizarre, or uncanny. All of these aspects of experience—identity, the world, and its constituents (i.e., inanimate objects and living beings), my body, my mind, even the experience of time—are created in consciousness, from consciousness, and through consciousness (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). To emphasize this point, my identity—who I am—is not created by me. Rather, I, as I know myself, am the creation of consciousness. Two alternative perspectives might be helpful in clarifying these ideas. Harry Stack Sullivan’s (1956) self-system approximates the creation of self in consciousness because the self-system creates the “I,” the “other,” and the relationship between them. Alternatively, from a neuropsychological perspective, everything we experience must be “created” in the brain. All neurological input must be integrated into the various particulars we experience, whether external objects, our bodies, our minds, or our identities. In a situation that leads to dissociative perception, the individual blocks out the background by focusing solely on one critical aspect of the situation. That aspect is of such importance that perception focuses on it exclusively— and blocks out the background. Those blocked inputs from the background become dissociative perceptual experiences.



I'm gonna leave you with Kulft's words here as well about how elaboration and distinction of parts are an epiphenomenon.

> So, how can clinicians discern the presence of alter personalities? What do alter personalities look like? The best answers to these questions can be found in Kluft’s (1985b) superb clinical description of MPD: “The natural history of multiple personality disorder.” This 20-year-old clinical-descriptive essay is still the single best account of the appearance and behavior of alter personalities. Upon re-reading this remarkable piece of clinical-descriptive psychiatry, we (re)discover two basic facts about MPD. First, although the DSM requires the presence of distinct personalities, naturally occurring DID does not. Quite the contrary. DID is a defensive adaptation that protects the person from a chronically dangerous environment. DID’s first priority is defense—not the conspicuous display of distinct personalities:
The raison d’être of multiple personality disorder is to provide a structured dissociative defense against overwhelming traumata. The emitted observable manifestations of multiple personality disorder are epiphenomena and tools of the defensive purpose. In terms of the patient’s needs, the personalities need only be as distinct, public, and elaborate as becomes necessary in the handling of stressful situations. (Kluft, 1985b, p. 231) In fact, most multiples self-protectively hide their multiplicity from others (Kluft, 1985b). Second, visible switches from one distinct personality to another are infrequent: “visible switching from one alter to another probably ranks among the least frequent phenomena of DID” (Dell, 2009a). In short, “overtness is not a basic ingredient of MPD” (Kluft, 1985a, p. 6)—even if the DSM implies that it is (or that it should be). Remember, the DSM requires overt DID; if the clinician cannot discern the presence of two or more distinct identities who switch (i.e., overt DID), then the patient cannot receive a diagnosis of DID. Now, obviously, many cases of DID have been successfully diagnosed on the basis of the “distinct personalities” The problem is that these factors pertain to a small minority of MPD patients at the sicker end of the scale or during episodic decompensations. The overwhelming majority of MPD patients do not manifest “distinct personalities” (or, they do so very infrequently). I do not believe that it is possible to operationalize the “distinct personalities” criterion in a way that will allow
clinicians to successfully diagnose those MPD patients who are currently undetectable according to the “distinct personalities” criterion).




My source for the day is:
https://www.amazon.com/Dissociation-Dissociative-Disorders-DSM-V-Beyond/dp/0415957850

Edit, I see you edited your comment, while I was replying to say you didn't want trauma to spread, if those parts are trying to communicate their experience you should listen, they won't stop because you don't want to hear.

Cool thanks. I'm a doctoral student in clinical psych and hadn't come across those terms before, so thanks for helping me learn. That being said, based on my understanding of similar concepts and a quick literature check (see here for instance), your definitions here are a little off. Desomatization concerns a lack of physical sensation (not functioning) or numbness. De-ideation concerns a lack of awareness of thoughts and other mental activity. Quite different from what you wrote.

You might want to look into conversion disorder as well (recently redubbed 'functional neurological symptom disorder') which technically involves dissociation of motor and/or sensory functioning from awareness/voluntary control. While the DSM places it in a distinct category, the ICD lists it as a dissociative disorder, for good reason. It was one of the earliest recognized disorders to be labelled as such, back when it known as "hysteria." I highly recommend reading into the history of psychology as dissociation plays an enormous role in it. I cannot recommend this book enough. I see a 2nd editionhas just been released

Feel free to PM me with specific questions if you like. I prefer not to give out my name.