Is someone with multiple personality disorder more than one person?*

[John Bunyan]

Why? What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person? Also, if one of his personalities is Rev. Jekyll and the other terrorist Hyde, what can we say about his eternal affairs?

* also know as Dissociative identity disorder

 

[Unoriginalname]

The notion of multiple personalities is more a construction of soap opera fiction than clinical observation. The phenomenon known as Dissociative identity disorder is a dissociation not to sound redundant. It is not a person born with two conflicting identities but a person creating a separate identity in order to separate themselves from some sort of event, memory or trauma. It is in the end a coping mechanism. This is the DSM IV's description of it.

Diagnostic criteria for 300.14 Dissociative Identity Disorder
(DSM IV - TR)
(cautionary statement)

A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).

B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.

C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.

D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance(e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.

Now we can argue the merit of the DSM all day long but I just wanted to post it to point out that what most people call multiple personality disorder is not thought to exist.

I have no philosophical background but I think that created personas do not qualify as separate persons.

 

[Miss Marple]

I have heard that this disorder has been generally disproven, Sybil for example has been exposed as a hoax, and I've read that current psychological theories tend to disbelieve the existence of multiple personalities.

 

[Claudiu]

What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person?

That's a tough one, philosophically speaking. I mean, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what a person is, and I don't find much of the literature out there on personal identity all that helpful. I would say that the soul has something to with it though. And I think that a person with multiple personalities still has one soul (i.e. still one numerical person).

 

[John Bunyan]

To anyone wanting to read about the medical condition, I've found this article helpful: Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) Treatment, Causes, Symptoms, Statistics - MedicineNet (although I am no doctor and I can't really judge it's content )

What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person?

That's a tough one, philosophically speaking. I mean, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what a person is, and I don't find much of the literature out there on personal identity all that helpful. I would say that the soul has something to with it though. And I think that a person with multiple personalities still has one soul (i.e. still one numerical person).

Must each soul have only one person? Can you summarize what you know about the subject? (like current held opinions on personal identity)

I have heard that this disorder has been generally disproven, Sybil for example has been exposed as a hoax, and I've read that current psychological theories tend to disbelieve the existence of multiple personalities.

I don't think that's correct.

The notion of multiple personalities is more a construction of soap opera fiction than clinical observation. The phenomenon known as Dissociative identity disorder is a dissociation not to sound redundant. It is not a person born with two conflicting identities but a person creating a separate identity in order to separate themselves from some sort of event, memory or trauma. It is in the end a coping mechanism. This is the DSM IV's description of it.

That position (about the causes of DID) is amongst the most held ones. According to the article: "While there is no proven specific cause of DID, the prevailing psychological theory about how the condition develops is as a reaction to childhood trauma"

I have no philosophical background but I think that created personas do not qualify as separate persons.

What is necessary to be a person? I mean, I know I'm a person because I have my own mind, my own memories, my self-perception and so on. Don't created personas have all of this?

 

[Miss Marple]

Sybil is a fraud, one of many accounts:

Multiple-personality drama “Sybil” was a fraud, says new book - NYPOST.com

 

[NB3K]

June 1, 1993 my diagnosis was

Axis I. 296.06 Bi-Polar Disorder, Mixed
313.81 Oppositional Defiant Disorder
313.80 Identity Disorder
314.01 History of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
V61.80 Other specific circumstances

Axis II. 315.00 Developmental Reading Disorder
315.31 Developmental Expressive Receptive Language Disorder

Axis III. History of Abnormal EEG
R/O Partial Complex Seizure Disorder

Axis IV. Psychosocial stressors-4 severe

Axis V. GAF is 15






With that said, people that KNOW me say I have a multiple personality disorder. But I would argue that it's the Mixed Bi-Polar.

 

[John Bunyan]

Sybil is a fraud, one of many accounts:

Multiple-personality drama “Sybil” was a fraud, says new book - NYPOST.com

I don't know who Sybil is. I was talking about the idea that DID has been generally disproven

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I knew someone who claimed to have this problem at one time. I would have to say that it seems to be a coping mechanism for trauma if it is real. But I would more than likely say it is some form of Demon possession or oppression. It might also be chemical. I have done some Chemicals before and fully operated but don't remember. What sad events.

Anyways, I went to Church with this persons son over 20 years ago and we sold her book at the bookstore. I am trying to get into contact with him to see what has happened this many years later and what he thinks now. It is a very complicated matter.

Amazon.com: Raging Waves (9780932081230): Co. Winter: Books

 

[newcreature]

As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria.

I do wonder about the eternal state of such a person. If one is truly afflicted with such mental illness, and their trust is in Christ alone through faith for salvation, then they are a child of God and their salvation is sure. However, if one uses their mental illness as an excuse for sin, then they are probably not a Christian.

That's my $0.02.

 

[Unoriginalname]

As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria.

When I called it a fiction I meant the notion of a jekyll/hyde is a fiction and is not what is being described by a DID. To further your point, DID is categorized with dissociative fugues, I do not think that someone would argue that a fugue state is a separate person from the previous state of the person. Likewise assuming a false identity (false in that it is intrusive and not the original or properly the owner; if you will of the body) should not be described as a separate person because it is a creation of the person.

 

[Jack K]

I know someone who's been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder. I'm convinced she isn't faking. She had severe psychological trauma in her childhood and the doctors think that's what brought it on. That sounds reasonable to me, though I won't completely rule out other causes or other stuff going on. It isn't an easy thing to understand. And figuring out what's happening is made more confusing by the fact that psychiatrists or therapists (or faith healers, for that matter) may suggest an explanation that the desperate patient then latches onto and starts to believe, accurate or not.

In my friend's case (and I've heard this is true in most cases), there's clearly a dominant, main personality. I don't think we ought to consider the other "personalities" to be separate persons. She's one person whose mind sometimes does dissociative things. It will act out being someone else so fully that this takes over briefly and she forgets she even did it.

The dominant personality is the one that matters when we're discussing matters of faith, obedience and repentance. The other is an aberration that we look to God to deliver her from. In her case, there is progress.

 

[newcreature]

As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria.

When I called it a fiction I meant the notion of a jekyll/hyde is a fiction and is not what is being described by a DID. To further your point, DID is categorized with dissociative fugues, I do not think that someone would argue that a fugue state is a separate person from the previous state of the person. Likewise assuming a false identity (false in that it is intrusive and not the original or properly the owner; if you will of the body) should not be described as a separate person because it is a creation of the person.

Very well then. I guess I was being too literal when I should have been thinking more logically.

 

[Unoriginalname]

That sounds reasonable to me, though I won't completely rule out other causes or other stuff going on. It isn't an easy thing to understand. And figuring out what's happening is made more confusing by the fact that psychiatrists or therapists (or faith healers, for that matter) may suggest an explanation that the desperate patient then latches onto and starts to believe, accurate or not.

I think that is a great point. When I did my psych rotation it was amazing how quickly people would seem to line up more closely with the symptoms of the disorder they were diagnosed with after they were diagnosed. I am not suggesting that they were faking it but that we tend fill the roles that others put us in. The mind is a whacky thing.

 

[a mere housewife]

. . . we tend fill the roles that others put us in.

I think perhaps we tend to fill the role we see ourselves in? -- that other people enter in because we tend to define ourselves as they see us? It seems that we know, even if not on a conscious level, that identity is 'common' property: that we are what we are in relationships: not in some forever unknowable corner of our psyche. We were created to exist in an utterly 'known and knowing' (as far as our creaturely being goes: obviously God is incapable of being exhaustively known except by Himself) relationship with God -- to live 'Coram Deo'; and our behavior seems to demonstrate that even where we deny it. I don't know what ramifications it has for severe disorders resulting from terrible trauma -- but for the identity issues we more normally face, I think it can be a terrible and alterative bondage to try to meet that utter human need for definition in relationship, outside of Christ; and it is freeing to identify ourselves in our Creator's knowing of us in steadfast love and favor and forgetfulness of our sins in Christ. It is part of that beautiful liberty of a child of God that we are learning to 'live up to'.

(I'm afraid I can't say much however, to the purpose of this particular disorder or the main focus of the thread, except that my heart for people who have suffered so terribly that they would still be suffering so.)

 

[Apologist4Him]

Why? What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person? Also, if one of his personalities is Rev. Jekyll and the other terrorist Hyde, what can we say about his eternal affairs?

* also know as Dissociative identity disorder

I just wonder what the modern Christian and non-Christian psychologist response would be to a person with a problem similar to the one we read about in the Gospel according to Mark Chapter 5:

Mark 5:1 "They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea." - NKJV

Could demon possession have a "multiple personality" disorder like effect on a person? From what we read in Mark, the man healed by Jesus, had been possessed by many unclean spirits or demons. Is this perplexing problem no longer possible (however rare it might be) with modern unregenerate mankind? If so, on what basis?

 

[sevenzedek]

A question that REALLLY gets at the meat of the perceived question is the one about the person who has two different sets of DNA. I have heard convincing evidence of such a case.

 

[Unoriginalname]

A question that REALLLY gets at the meat of the perceived question is the one about the person who has two different sets of DNA. I have heard convincing evidence of such a case.

Not necessarily because they are functioning as one human. Would someone who had an organ transplant be two people? Personhood is more than just genetics.

 

[newcreature]

Could demon possession have a "multiple personality" disorder like effect on a person? From what we read in Mark, the man healed by Jesus, had been possessed by many unclean spirits or demons. Is this perplexing problem no longer possible (however rare it might be) with modern unregenerate mankind? If so, on what basis?

I believe this is a strong possibility. It seems to me there are two causes of mental illness. The first, widely accepted by science, is the presence of trauma and/ or chemical imbalance. We know that this has merit because people with hormonal imbalances can often become mentally unstable.

Now we know that Jesus is real and that He has all power. And we also know that demons are real, even though they have only as much power as God allows them. With this in mind, and please correct me if I am not applying this scripture correctly, but we are created as beings both natural and spiritual.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

(1 Corinthians 15:42-45; 1 Corinthians 15:46-49 ESV)

Therefore, I believe that demon possession, as demonstrated in the New Testament, was certainly real then and is also possible now. I believe that some people who are reprobate may be given over to evil spirits. I believe that modern medicine, psychiatry, and psychology can not help someone with mental illness due to demon possession. However, I do believe that modern medicine may help the condition of one afflicted with mental illness due to trauma or chemical imbalance.

 

[John Bunyan]

Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?

 

[a mere housewife]

I have been thinking of Psalm 139 -- I don't think a 'person' can be defined apart from the knowledge God has of us? I don't think personhood can be defined outside of relationship to our Creator.

I don't think dissociative personality states would be 'half persons' in that light. They would be manifestations of the way sin and its effects disrupt and destroy the integrity of identity before God.

edit: it is perhaps also worth pointing out that we define the 'Persons' of the Godhead by their relationships to one another.

 

[Afterthought]

^A wonderful thought that is philosophically interesting and insightful too, in my own opinion (though an opinion which is, admittedly, that of one not anywhere near an expert on the topic)! Thank you for that thought.

 

[a mere housewife]

Raymond, that's very kind. I'm sure it does have a lot of ramifications in ways that are probably beyond me (I remember reading something by Bertrand Russell where if I remember correctly, he said that propositions reflect reality by way of the relationships expressed; and of course we know that Truth is a Person in relation to other Persons, and not a mere proposition at all); but one very simple application, very much up the alley of a housewife to make -- and which would perhaps spare so much of this kind of pain -- is something Carol from this board said recently: that people in our lives are not our possessions. They belong to the Lord. They are gifts in our lives to be cherished every day.

 

[jwithnell]

When I did my psych rotation it was amazing how quickly people would seem to line up more closely with the symptoms of the disorder they were diagnosed with after they were diagnosed.

Fascinating observation. I suppose there might be some relief -- ah, so xyz diagnosis explains these weird things that have been happening to me ...

 

[OPC'n]

I talk to myself AND answer myself. Does that qualify as having MPD?

 

[jwright82]

Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?

Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns.

That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.

But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.

The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.

 

[Apologist4Him]

I believe this is a strong possibility. It seems to me there are two causes of mental illness. The first, widely accepted by science, is the presence of trauma and/ or chemical imbalance. We know that this has merit because people with hormonal imbalances can often become mentally unstable.

Now we know that Jesus is real and that He has all power. And we also know that demons are real, even though they have only as much power as God allows them.

Therefore, I believe that demon possession, as demonstrated in the New Testament, was certainly real then and is also possible now. I believe that some people who are reprobate may be given over to evil spirits. I believe that modern medicine, psychiatry, and psychology can not help someone with mental illness due to demon possession. However, I do believe that modern medicine may help the condition of one afflicted with mental illness due to trauma or chemical imbalance.

I agree. What makes me sad though, is Christians (especially Charismatics/Pentecostals) whom are of the mindset that a Christian could be possessed by evil spirits when Jesus taught that "No one can serve two masters", “He who is not with Me is against Me", "if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand". I do believe a Christian sealed (Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30) by the Holy Spirit (sorry for redundancy) can be influenced and or afflicted by evil spirits (temptations, depression, etc.), while not being possessed. However a Christian, because of the authority of Christ, and belonging to Him, has authority over evil spirits and demons, whether put into practice or not. Many times in affliction, I've called on Jesus name, and reminded the evil one that Jesus Christ is Lord. From the book of Job we learn exactly what you said "they have only as much power as God allows them". Though we are perplexed and troubled at times by the extent of which God allows, we can only hope and trust our Redeemer to bring about good for His purpose and glory from it, even though He would be perfectly just to allow us all to wallow in our sins.

 

[John Bunyan]

Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?

Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns.

That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.

But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.

The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.

There is no definition of person, then, or is person just other way of saying "intelligent"? Like, angels and humans are persons, and they are intelligent. You're saying that there is no definition of person or simply that we don't need to have something in us to "person" to make sense? Is person a primitive concept?

 

[jwithnell]

Shouldn't a question regarding personhood be answered by what scripture has revealed concerning man? We are created body and soul. However you might define mind (that's another whole discussion) you may not remove reference to the spiritual from the physical and the mind would be encompassed by one or the other. A person's body may be dead, but their spirit is with Christ, and both parts -- one corresponding to the other -- exist though separated. There may be a seriously ill individual, but unless you are dealing with demonic possession, that individual is one human being, body and soul, regardless of what he or she may be experiencing.

 

[py3ak]

Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?

Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns.

That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.

But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.

The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.

James, perhaps I'm not understanding you very clearly, but your words do have a referential meaning: there is an idea of Mr. Hand to which your words refer - you and your daughter share a conceptual construct. Mr. Hand's substance is that of mental fiction - but mental fiction has a reality and existence on its own terms: Uncle Toby is a real invention, even though he exists only in the words of Tristram Shandy. It seems to unlettered me that denying referentiality is contrary to the usage of ordinary language, not to mention common sense.

By the way, I am delighted to make Mr. Hand's acquaintance, and if he did not think it improper would gladly shake him, given the opportunity.