Question

1. The diagnosis of DID or Dissociative Identity Disorder is highly controversial. The unusual concentration of DID diagnoses in North America when compared with the rest of the global population causes some researchers to question the validity of DID. Some experts believe that reported cases of DID should be attributed instead to social contagion, hypnotic or subconscious suggestion, and misdiagnosis. They believe it is actually a “behavioral” disorder (learned/reinforced), while others maintain that it is indeed a genuine disorder. What do you think?

I, too, saw the film Split recently! I would caution students not to base their opinions off of a fictional thriller-- which leads us to part 2 of this discussion:

2. Do you believe filmmakers have a social responsibility to portray disorders and sufferers of mental illness accurately? Why or why not?

Please make sure to fully answer both questions in your post!

Answer 1

There is definitely a lot of rumination and cnfusion when it comes to the diagnosis of DID, however it can be seen to be a real disorder if psychometricians and the clinical team watch out for the signs where the identity is shifting and changing, speaking in different voice or voices, using different names, switching different parts of the personality, feeling as if you are losing control to someone else, experiencing different parts of your identity at different times and acting like different people of different ages. These factors can easily be researched by people where there have been cases where the individual has got away with criminal activity by posing as somebody else or harming another under the 'influence' of being somebody else. However, understanding the truth from the lie is what makes the clinician a good one in being able to judge the DID carefully in a given patient. It is true that the genetic factor related to this illness is poor as compared to most illnesses and hence the reality of it needs to be measured by various other aspects of the patient such as-

The focus needs to be at the level of identity and personality. This can occur at any level such as sensation, cognition, affect, behaviour and consciousness among others. It is important to not that it is an illness where results develop in childhood when due to traumatic experiences that are real cause the child to be unable to form a unified sense of self. What is most important is that earlier onset child abuse appears to differentiate DID from one that is factitious. This is typically at the hands of an attachment figure. Milder forms of the illness could be seen as a result of earlier forms of social neglect.

Further, the emotion behind the DID person must be seen. In the sense, these patients often feel isolated and lonely as they do not really understand themselves and they experience depersonalization and derealization that may go back to their chidhood. They feel disconnected and different.

We must not see the DID person in isolation and instead in temrs of the family and cultural context to understand the illness better. Family members of patients are reported to have frequent mood swings, intense anger and inability to control anger, paranoid ideas and identity confusion. Hence it is a real illness that can be easily manipulated and clinicians need to be vary of this.

Coming to the next part of the question which is very much related to the first part, that definitely while making movies, individuals need to have a complete perpective of what the illness is about and it doesnt always have to be about harming others, if one has noticed this disorder is mostly shown in the light of wanting to kill or hurt others, however a more complete understanding needs to be studied before making movies. This involves the persons past, their childhood, their family, their upbringing and not just the episodes. Because the lay man just takes back the latter episodes instead of understanding how the patient is actually suffering.