![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by noa on March 23, 2004, at 17:42:24
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by DaisyM on March 23, 2004, at 15:25:46
Yes, this resonates. Sometimes, some states of emotion feel overpowering and nonverbal, like they come from early in my life before I had words to describe feelings.
Posted by EmmyS on March 23, 2004, at 18:36:38
In reply to Re: Ego states » EmmyS, posted by Pfinstegg on March 23, 2004, at 7:24:26
Very helpful info...thank you.
I just ordered an out of print book on the topic. If I can remember how to use those double double quotes.... "People in Pieces: Multiple Personality in Milder Forms & Greater Numbers"
Emmy
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 18:53:57
In reply to Re: Ego states » Pfinstegg, posted by EmmyS on March 23, 2004, at 18:36:38
> Very helpful info...thank you.
>
> I just ordered an out of print book on the topic. If I can remember how to use those double double quotes.... "People in Pieces: Multiple Personality in Milder Forms & Greater Numbers"
>
> Emmy
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 18:54:48
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 18:53:57
And I submitted links and everything :(
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 19:01:50
In reply to Re: Ego states » Dinah, posted by Pfinstegg on March 23, 2004, at 16:11:05
It's the darndest thing. It took all my courage to bring up this topic, and then I look back a year and see I was talking about it then too. :)
Go figure. And no, that's not amnesia. It might be preferring not to remember a sensitive topic.
I usually like to look back in the archives and see how much I've grown but this time I'm disheartened that I'm still struggling with the same issue and haven't really come all that far.
I think to a large extent shame holds me back. And I'm not ashamed of much. So why am I so ashamed of this?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 19:04:37
In reply to Re: Ego states » Pfinstegg, posted by EmmyS on March 23, 2004, at 18:36:38
Thanks for the referral Emmy. I tried to order it too.
I really liked "The Myth of Sanity" by Martha Stout. I even had a e-consultation with her, although her site seems to have disappeared and her email address is no longer functional. It talks a lot about dissociatated ego states short of DID too.
Posted by rs on March 23, 2004, at 19:41:35
In reply to Ego states, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2004, at 20:37:09
hi Dinah. First of all do not post here often. So sorry for just jumping in. Thought your post was interesting.
First of all I am DID. Like to say am and not have. Not sure on why. Anyway took many years for someone to believe and figure out what is going on. I know in this area there is not many that work with it at all. Also think is the believing part but also its a long process. Had a T for sometime but he moved away. UGH. After a few years finally had to search out again. Actually called people and no one would see me. Finally found the one seeing now and he is the best. Believes etc. Is not scared or back off from anyone that speaks with him. Think he does not. Also when started to see him told him what was going on. He totally ignored it. Anyway finally he looks and say yes you are DID. No kidding. He said that he has had many people go in there and say they are but not. Why people would fake this I asked. He said for attention etc. How sad. He has only worked with one before me. So not sure if this is any help. But IMO think it takes a darn open minded therapist and special one to work with DID. Also IMO DID clients should be seen at least twice a week and at times will be in crisis. I feel for you if you are trying to expalin your ego states and how and what is going on for you.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 19:49:50
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by rs on March 23, 2004, at 19:41:35
That must have been a really difficult thing to do. I'm not sure how well therapy would work with a therapist who didn't believe a person. I'm glad you kept trying until you found a therapist who believed.
Posted by EmmyS on March 23, 2004, at 19:50:13
In reply to Re: Ego states - Noa and » Pfinstegg, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 19:01:50
"I think to a large extent shame holds me back. And I'm not ashamed of much. So why am I so ashamed of this? "
Funny...you're asking ME ;-)
It's a dx with an odd rep historically speaking. Full blown DID harkens me back to Sybil and the first pop culture books on mental illness. That book scared the heck outta me. Then there were the days of DID being overdiagnosed, and so much controversy. Then some time when the internet began to be extraodinarily popular, along came many faux DID personalities. So much bad press.
I'm pretty lost on the topic Dinah. The more I think, the less I know.
Emmy
Posted by DaisyM on March 23, 2004, at 23:04:35
In reply to Re: Ego states - Noa and » Pfinstegg, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2004, at 19:01:50
>>>I think to a large extent shame holds me back. And I'm not ashamed of much. So why am I so ashamed of this?
I can only tell you why I am ashamed of this for me...the little kid part is so amazingly needy. She was so hurt and so traumatized that when she shows herself, it is because she has something to say to my Therapist. She has become really attached to him, and I've noticed, that when she disappears, she takes him with her, metaphorically speaking. Then "I" feel empty, like I've lost something really important. We've recently starting working on ways the adult me can feel attached to him too.
The adult me is not only terrified of what she might say and of her memories, but also of how vocal she is about getting her needs met. I feel like getting these needs met is a burden on others and I should not be lonely, or in crisis nor should I want to be soothed or held. But these are things she wants.
Even as I write this, I shake my head. It is so mortifying for me. Which is why I don't want to talk about myself in parts anymore. My Therapist says it is too soon to push this, that the parts will go back into hiding. But it feels just plain weird to me...
Posted by ryan312 on March 24, 2004, at 1:11:35
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by DaisyM on March 23, 2004, at 15:25:46
I was sexually abused as a child and had early parental loss.
I often find myself in a dissociated state with two voices with which I am not familiar talking to each other. However, I only catch the "tale end" of the conversation.
It is a situation where I "come back" to reality, perhaps standing in the middle of my living room, and then just a 2 second fragment of the conversation I was having between two "imaginary" voices is available to my "real" ego.
I don't by any means think I have "fully formed" separate personalities. However, I do think I have "split off" fragmented, partially formed, ego states(personalities) other than my primary "self".
I also often, many times a day, "come back" from dissociating and find my self attacking my own body by pinching myself all over, etc. But when I come back to full awareness I stop that self injurious behavior after about 10 seconds.
This is a fascinating yet scary subject.
Posted by Shalala on March 24, 2004, at 1:51:49
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by ryan312 on March 24, 2004, at 1:11:35
This is very interesting. I really identify with this idea. I just "know" I'm in pieces somehow. I think at some point I created another part of me inside of myself that I talked to, who was always there. It was just the way I thought inside my head. I created my own little consultant. It's a little tiring keeping up these conversations in my head, so I'm glad to say my thoughts are less divided these days, and somehow really more my own. I once had a voice in my head call me a name, like it was as real as day. It's funny the way your psyche structures itself.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 24, 2004, at 6:34:35
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by Shalala on March 24, 2004, at 1:51:49
There is actually a therapy orientation out there called Internal Systems Therapy. This was started by a group who were working with clients with bulimia. They found common themes in these inner voices which roughly correspond to a thinker, feeler, and doer. Systems theory looks at how different roles played out in a family system affect behaviors. Internal Systems theory places the roles and actors within one Self. The therapy gets the "leader" or the Self to dialog with the other roles or voices and for them to dialog with each other. The goal is for the "team" to all be on the same page. For example, someone who SI's might be thought of as having the "actor" part of them working overtime to control the expression of the feeling part by SI'ing before a painful feeling can surface. The actor part gets so used to this role, that it acts without the others' approval, and has essentially taken over the leadership role of the Self.
Does this make sense? I just found this theory to be interesting and a way to provide some structure to the different "parts" of clients' inner worlds which can play a role in therapy. I use the two-chair a lot to work with the different dialogs. It's a very experiential approach that I have had some good luck with.
Does this resonate at all with different ego states that many of you have been describing? Or am I coming out of left field?
Interesting thread!
gg
Posted by EmmyS on March 24, 2004, at 7:39:19
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by gardenergirl on March 24, 2004, at 6:34:35
Yikes GG - You struck gold for me. Thinker, feeler, doer are perfect. I'm off to learn more about Internal systems therapy. Thank you very much.
Posted by fallsfall on March 24, 2004, at 8:04:30
In reply to Re: Ego states » gardenergirl, posted by EmmyS on March 24, 2004, at 7:39:19
As far as I can tell, I have only one ego state. I don't really understand the "inner child" stuff. I know that I have a lot of Child-like (childish?) wishes. Most of my comforts are child related (swings, crayons, ice cream).
My therapist used to be the Psychology Director in a hospital. He told me that many people would come in claiming to have DID. He doesn't believe in DID. He said that they just needed to pull together their different viewpoints into a single viewpoint. Gee, that sounds a lot like DID integration to me.
I know 2 people very well who have DID, so I have experienced it myself.
I told my therapist that we would have to agree to disagree on this. And that I would, from time to time, need to talk about my close friend who has DID (and I implied that I didn't want him to "correct" my viewpoint). This has worked for us so far.
P.S. Daisy, my therapist is Psychodynamic, too, but does NOT believe in DID. You implied that you thought that Psychodynamic implied belief in DID. I'm interested in why you think that.
Posted by DaisyM on March 24, 2004, at 11:03:45
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by fallsfall on March 24, 2004, at 8:04:30
<<<P.S. Daisy, my therapist is Psychodynamic, too, but does NOT believe in DID. You implied that you thought that Psychodynamic implied belief in DID. I'm interested in why you think that.
>>>I think I meant less about "belief" and more about working with whatever comes up. Maybe it is the terminology, but it seems like most psychodynamically oriented Therapists work with the different parts of the personality/ego: thinking/intellectualizing part, feeling part, etc. Or they talk about internalized voices.
I didn't really mean to imply a definite connection between belief or not. More that this orientation is willing to work with the "how you got this way" not just "what do we do about it now."
I'm wondering if your Therapist believes that people who present with DID actually have conscious control about "who" is out, even if they say they don't. I could see how you would wonder about that: Is this person using different personalities as a defense mechanism? But I guess I think it is confusing if you "believe" in the unconscious being able to motivate people into behaviors and they aren't aware of the motivation, then how can you *not* believe that separate personalities might exist in that unconscious.
But, I don't know very much about this subject. When I try to read up on it, it makes my head spin and I space out. I find this reaction disturbing and fascinating at the same time.
Posted by ryan312 on March 24, 2004, at 14:24:03
In reply to Ego states, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2004, at 20:37:09
When I find myself "coming back to reality" from a dissociated state, the voices I hear are not internal. They are external.
I can't really relate to internal voices.
I actually will find myself standing in a room of my house talking out loud. Two different voices. Say a female and a male. But as I mentioned in an earlier post I only hear the tale end of the conversation. I mean like a few seconds worth. And then I am back in reality.
So complex..
Posted by gardenergirl on March 24, 2004, at 18:03:40
In reply to Re: Ego states » gardenergirl, posted by EmmyS on March 24, 2004, at 7:39:19
> Yikes GG - You struck gold for me. Thinker, feeler, doer are perfect. I'm off to learn more about Internal systems therapy. Thank you very much.
>
>
Glad to be of service. I really like this, combined with process-experiential has been really helpful. If you email me at gardenergirl 88 at yahoo dot com I will be glad to send you a reference. It came out of volume four of a lovely four volume set on therapy models.Take care,
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 18:34:29
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by fallsfall on March 24, 2004, at 8:04:30
I talked to my therapist about this, and he appears not to understand *at all* how a therapist who doesn't believe in it explains what they're seeing. I think I understand that point a bit better than he does, but then I think I read more about it than he does. lol.
If I understand his history correctly, he worked with a number of people with multiple personality disorder back when it was called multiple personality disorder. :) And he is clear that my presentation isn't the same as theirs, but somewhere less on the continuum.
Fortunately, I think he's given up on the idea of integration. Neither part of me liked that idea *at all*.
So we've worked out a compromise. The emotional side of me attends therapy almost all the time. After all, rational me has no need of therapy. :)
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 22:03:02
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by DaisyM on March 24, 2004, at 11:03:45
I used to fall asleep every time I read "The Myth of Sanity". So I read it a few more times until I didn't fall asleep any more.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 22:13:30
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by Shalala on March 24, 2004, at 1:51:49
It *is* funny how our psyches structure themselves. And most of our experiences are a bit different from each other's. I think if I can accept that, I might be able to accept the whole thing better. I keep wanting to be able to put my experience in a box. To say, ok I answer this and this and this question yes, that must mean I have XXXX. But diagnosis doesn't seem to work that way.
And it makes me wonder if I'm not just making the whole thing up. But the thing is, if I were making it up, wouldn't I make it up *better*? I mean, I read all the books. I know the standard symptoms. I could do a much better job than this if I wanted to fake it.
It just gets confusing for me.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 22:30:58
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by gardenergirl on March 24, 2004, at 6:34:35
I used to say my emotional self and my rational self, because that's the lines it generally falls into. But it's not perfectly accurate (but then, what is). My rational self has feelings. My rational self can get angry and spout off polysyllabic eloquent diatribes. While my emotional self becomes wordless when angry. My emotional self can think, and occasionally is wiser than my rational self, although the access to vocabulary isn't as good.
So I ended up with "She Who Is As She Should Be" and "She Who Is As She Is". That seems to sum it up better than any other descriptor.
The inner child metaphor can be useful because everyone understands and identifies with it. But it can cause trouble at times too. When I went to the EMDR therapist and she was going over my DES results (which said I don't dissociate very much at all) she was using the inner child metaphor. She was saying that we all had inner children that needed to be put away most of the time so that the adult side of us could interact with the world (I'm paraphrasing here as I was upset at the time). And I was saying "You know... You're talking to *me*. It really isn't polite to call someone an archaic inner child remnant to their face!" I don't think she got what I was trying to tell her. I left her office in tears and managed to reach my therapist who was trying to explain to me that she meant no offense while barely stifling his amusement at the terminology.
Which may be the real reason that EMDR didn't work so well. I tried to get past that, and maybe I did. But maybe I didn't.
I've read the Inner Systems Theory some, but it didn't really resonate. Perhaps I read it wrong and got offended again at the limited role each part was assigned. That's generally what happens. Touchy touchy I am. :)
Posted by gardenergirl on March 25, 2004, at 22:54:39
In reply to Re: Ego states » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2004, at 22:30:58
Dinah,
I realize EMDR was a really painful experience for you, but I just have to laugh when reading your response to your EMDR T. I absolutely agree that saying that to your face was certainly insensitive and oblivious. How awful. Your response was great! Good for you for calling her on it so perfectly. You have a knack for saying just what I would want to say to put someone in their place, but you do it SO gracefully! It's no wonder she didn't get it. Can you come to my office and talk to someone who needs to grow and be a professional? Pretty please? Because I have found I can't win no matter what approach I try. Even the usual rapport building skills fall flat or get thrown back with her.But back to your post. You know, I am really in the process of trying on the IST approach right now. That's the beauty of the type of training I am getting this year. It's a really safe place to try a number of models to find what does and doesn't work for you and for different clients.
You may already know this from your reading, but to clarify for others who may be following this: The original model started with women with bulimia. There is not a great deal of research (at least not when I was doing my lit review for my CCE case) about using it with other dx's. I believe there is a study under way with depression. Perhaps it does not resonate with you because it really isn't right for other dx's or other personality types. The arbitrary divisions may not fit everyone.
The thinking, feeling, and acting descriptions were my attempt to avoid jargon. Again, you may know this already, but in the model, what I called the thinker is really an internal critic. The feeling part is called the "exile" as in the population studied, feelings were usually exiled into a place where they could not be "heard" and could not serve their adaptive purpose. The actor or doer part is called the "firefighter". This is the part who comes in and causes the binge in response to signals of distress either from the critic or the exile. The Self is supposed to manage the three and make sure none is usurping the role of another.
Sometimes I just like giving different parts a more concrete, visual image in order to help people separate them out in a two chair technique. I'm not sure yet I really can use this effectively all the time. Of course I always fall back to Kohut and to basic interpretation, mirroring, and working through transference. Just call me an eclectic!
I don't think my post derailed the ego states discussion, because it's been an interesting thread. I know I say this a lot, but I learn so much from everyone on this site. But if I did distract or derail, I'm sorry. And thanks for your response.
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2004, at 0:18:42
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by gardenergirl on March 25, 2004, at 22:54:39
Oh goodness no, you didn't distract or derail. That's what's so confounding and so interesting about the whole ego state idea. That it can be soooo different for different people. I'm sure there are people for whom that description and way of working fits very well.
I don't seem to fit anything. :( There's the problem. But my emotional self is quite the little ego state activist, and doesn't really like being constrained by limitations as to what she is. Because she is as she is, of course. lol.
Do you find that the two chair technique works? My therapist tried it very very early in therapy. Before the question of me and me was raised. Once that came into play, I don't think he would have done anything that might have "encouraged" any thoughts I had of having more than one ego state. I guess he didn't want any suggestions of iatrogenic phenomenon. He's a cautious therapist.
I'm not sure it would have worked anyway. Both ego states don't seem to be able to share primary consciousness anyway. I don't think I could have switched back and forth that easily. I think there might be some trance state or self hypnosis involved to allow direct access to my emotional self. Without that, that part of me seems limited to communicating by bolts of emotion. Although that may be becoming less true as time goes on.
At any rate, although it didn't ring true for me, it did for others on the thread. And I didn't mean the thread to be just about me. I'm interested in the different ways well differentiated ego states manifest themselves. Because it's just terribly confusing to me.
It's so odd the first time you hear you, yet not quite you, say things that you don't in any way believe or agree with, yet feel total belief and agreement with what is being said, even while you totally disagree.
Geez, I'm spinning my own head in circles. And yes, I've discussed all of it with my therapist ad infinitum. He doesn't understand why I'm so discombobulated by the whole thing. He just calmly accepts and interacts with whichever part of me shows up for therapy.
Anyway, sorry for rambling. It's the long way of telling you that nothing you said was wrong. And perhaps of coming clean, because really there's nothing to be ashamed of, right?
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2004, at 0:27:20
In reply to Re: Ego states, posted by gardenergirl on March 25, 2004, at 22:54:39
Oooh. I also meant to say that I'm sorry you're having trouble with a colleague. That can be sooo frustrating. I'd be happy to come talk to him for you. :) But remember, I didn't actually get through to her. To be fair to myself, since it was my emotional self talking I was probably not all that eloquent. I never did get her to understand that she *was* talking to the archaic inner child remnant, not the adult she was talking nicely about.
So I don't think I'd get any farther than you did.
Sigh.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.