h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I could just do with a KitKat - thanks!
-Lucinda

Playboy,

I've read your posting (here and the other location.) I'm pleased to see that you haven't disappointed me or the rest of your audience. It would be a shame if you suddenly paid attention to facts or did any proper research.

I withdraw my previous caution about looking foolish. It's clearly too late for you to avoid that. Much as you seem to have decided that you have no use for me or my observations, I have decided to give up any hope that you will ever overcome your sensless prejudice. Still, I will post briefly at your other blind and logic-free attack on the reality of DID, just to let you know that I was there and did read it.

Since I had suggested that you not post further on the subject till you had done the research to be able to speak intelligently, I suppose you were within your rights to suggest that I never post anwhere again. After all, since you are 'right', I must be 'wrong'.

The difference between us on this issue is that you are opperating on faith, a faith that it seems you have had preached at you and accepted. I do not argue against people's faith. That would be pointless. (Though, I can't help speculating why you feel so threatened by DID that you must turn this into a crusade.)

To be fair, having accepted your faith, you do seem to be going about trying to spread your religion dilligently and with some attempt at originality. Not uncommonly, you seem to believe that your faith can be substantiated with fact. Equally common, you refuse to consider facts that contradict your faith.

I wouldn't even object if you weren't so dead set on knocking us up of an early Sunday morning asking to come in and explain just how wrong we all are. I'll tell you what I tell all the other religious fanatics who insist on saving me from self-delusion (oddly, it's the same thing I say when I've been propositioned by men or women): Thank you, I'm flattered, but I'm not interested.

(You can put your finger back down, and you should really work on your presentation skills)

Barton

P.S. It really wasn't necessary for you to compliment me by equating me with LeKZ (I had thought I was too pompous for that) but thank you all the same.

Look! You're pointing at yourself...

Don't yank on that finger - no - don't - oh, too late.

Wow... has this thread reached a *new* all-time low? I didn't think it was possible after Deidzoeb made a Beavis and Butthead joke a few hundred posts ago...

Of course, Playboy *did* come back, so I guess I shouldn't rule anything out.



Deidzoeb? You still here?

Oh wait, I've got one...


Tube, I wouldn't even *touch* those fingers if I were you... you don't know where they've been!

In Carry on Screaming, a whole new monster grew from a disembodied finger...

To get this thing back on track ... those people who believe in the principle of actually *knowing* something about what they're talking about, might want to check out this entry, and investigate some or all of the links in it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A663158

That contains some info on Dissociative Identity Disorder from *other* sources than the ones banished for life from h2g2, for purposes of independent corroboration and verification and comparison.

And for people who just want to learn.

Thank you, Willem.

Barton

... not to mention the hand in Evil Dead II - Dead by Dawn ....

not to mention sowing dragon teeth or magic beans.

Barton

I can't adequately express the shock of seeing the gratuitous and unecessary publicity given in post 1521 to a chocolate bar made by N******. (Far as I'm concerned the only chocolate finger was the finger of fudge that's just enough to give your kids a treat , made by someone completely different.)

'Case I think your idea of posting those links to DID sites and depersonalising this issue is an excellent one. I've read about half of the links, I have one question so far which I'll ask there.

Barton, re post 1468 "Or even acquiring it." is intriguing as an idea. Can I just ask, as a final question on DID here, (from me because I think 'Case is right in moving this topic), was it a serious one?

Waz (still stunned at the K**K** reference a week later)

Compartmentalization is a common tactic for problem solving whereby one isolates some portion of hirself toward working away at a the solution to some question. I do it all the time and my studies tell me that most people, at some time, do the same. The example I have listed a couple of times elsewhere on h2g2 is when I am acting. I devote a part of myself to portraying the character, another part to remembering where I am supposed to be and what I am supposed to be doing on the stage. At the same time, I may be filing away notes on things that need to be dealt with later about the performance.

More commonly, most of us who drive, can watch the road ahead, checking for obstacles and obstructions as well as checking our road speed, the traffic behind and to the side while appreciating the music on the radio or talking to a friend in the next seat on a subject that has nothing to do with driving and may, in fact, require substantial thought and visualization. I know that I have certain trained responses when driving that more or less run on their own. For instance, when I am involved in a conversation that has distracted me too much, I will automatically bring the car to a stop when an active decision is required (such as whether the light at an intersection is green or red) and I have not made that decision sufficiently in advance. (Makes me sound like a bad driver but I have had very few accidents and no traffic citations for fifteen or twenty years now.)

My point here is that anytime we do more than one thing at a time (which is to say, most of the time -- X is so dumb s/he can't chew gum and walk at the same time) we are compartmentalizing the process. I know that when that happens, my focus -- what I am actively aware of and paying attention to -- moves between these processes. Being a single 'I', I cannot give my attention to more than one thing at a time. Those processes I am not focusing on must proceed on 'autopilot' based on previous experience or pre-planning.

If you take a moment, you can think of many activities you participate in that require overlapping attention on your part but which do not require your full attention at all times. You can also think of times when failing to give proper attention has gotten you into trouble -- minor or major.

Consider the advantage, if you could devote full attention, for instance, to driving a car and solving a complex problem that does not involve actually using my eyes, hands, and feet. If there were more than one 'I', this would not be a problem. Hence, I made the remark, about acquiring such a capability.

Obviously, there is more to it than that. Having more than one 'I' also means that one is not alone in one's body. That other 'I' is not the same as oneself, it's always the *other* I. One might have discussions with that other I but one does not necessarily share knowledge with that other I. One does not even necessarily like that other I.

If one has a sense of fairness then one must also consider sharing access to the external world and control of the body with that other I. One must consider that the other I has needs that are different from oneself.

Above all, one must recognize that another I is not merely a tool of the personal system for solving problems but is every bit as real as oneself. The rest of the world has no reason to favor either I over the other save in social terms such as, "This 'I' is more pleasant to talk to than the other 'I'." or asking questions such as, "How is it that sometimes you are a good person and others you act like a drunken sot?"

Such I's clearly have external impact but they bound to be lumped together as part of one body. Even more significant is the idea that such I's have all come from one central source. Whatever the reasons for their differentiation, they all reflect some portion of the totality that makes up the person.

I know that there are parts of me that I deliberately edit away from the outside world. I would not choose to have I's made up of those parts and I would most definitely not choose to have them free and in charge of my body.

So, while I can easily envision valuable things to be gained from being multiple, I can also say I would not willingly choose to be multiple.

This all, of course, is without any reference to what it seems must be imposed on someone in order to lead them into that kind of defensive posture. I cannot begin to condone any advantage that requires that sort of torture and misuse of any person.

Ultimately, then, what I was saying is that given such a circumstance, I am prepared to look for possible advantages for such a system of personalities or identities or 'I's.

Barton

Wazungumza - my heartfelt apologies - anything made by Nxxxxx is surely not something that should be mentioned in an area that impresionable kids might stumble across. I'd yikes my post, but I somehow doubt the moderators would see things the same way...

btw, if you haven't already seen it, my Nestle boycott entry is still languishing under the moderator's curse at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A634781 - if you wanna subscribe to the PR thread, I'll let everyone know when (if) I finally get it sorted...

hiya

hey Patrick - long time no see...