When I was first diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, I assumed the diagnosis came with a framework that would help me understand what I was experiencing. That framework, as it’s commonly described, suggests that DID is characterized by the presence of distinct identities or “alters” within one person, each with their own memories, preferences, and traits. Over time, individuals are expected to become aware of these alters, communicate with them, understand their internal system, and work toward cooperation or integration.
I believed that, eventually, I would get to know my alters, understand how my system worked, and be able to internally communicate with these distinct parts of myself. I also believed that one day I would know myself as plural. Although I was skeptical, I stayed open-minded—my therapist strongly affirmed that DID was a real and valid diagnosis, and the research I had read seemed compelling enough to convince me that the disorder itself was legitimate, even if I didn’t yet understand how it applied to me.
But I quickly became confused. The experiences I was told to expect—parts stepping forward, explaining who they were, talking to me internally, or managing different aspects of life—weren’t happening. I did experience noticeable switches, but I wasn’t receiving messages from other identities or encountering parts with distinct names or personalities. What I was experiencing were blackouts, memory discontinuities, profound spaciness, overt regressive flashbacks that I had zero memory of occurring, and moments where I felt like I had fallen asleep and come back. But none of it mapped cleanly onto the “system” narrative that was so central to every account I could find.
Despite this mismatch, I tried to fit myself into the model. I waited for internal messages. I tried to identify and name parts. I expected communication to emerge, because that’s what the diagnosis—and the cultural narrative surrounding it—told me would happen. I thought perhaps I just needed to be more attuned, or more open. But instead of gaining clarity, I felt increasingly alienated from my own experience. Meanwhile, I was experiencing overt dissociative symptoms that I couldn’t connect to DID, because they didn’t resemble the kind of “switches” I had been taught to look for. They didn’t feel like other people taking over—they felt like discrete, jarring discontinuities in my internal experience. These experiences were familiar to me, though, which made them difficult to even recognize as symptoms.
One moment stands out clearly. A few months after my diagnosis, I was taking a shower and caught my reflection in the mirror. I felt a sudden wave of fear and disgust as I wondered if someone else was watching my naked body from behind my own eyes. I hid myself from the mirror, just in case. I was scared. Can others inside me who aren’t me hear my thoughts right now? Can they see me? I never felt the presence of another watching me—but I had read so many first-person narratives describing similar fears, framed in terms of “alters” or internal others, that I started to question whether that was happening to me. I had absorbed those conceptualizations so deeply that they began to shape how I perceived myself.
That moment wasn’t a switch. It wasn’t a sign of communication from another part. It was the byproduct of a false narrative imposed on real symptoms. I had internalized a model that didn’t fit, and it led me to misread my own mind.
After two years of confusion and dysfunction—years spent waiting for my “alters” to communicate with me while ignoring or misinterpreting my actual dissociative symptoms—I began to understand what was really going on. What I was experiencing wasn’t internal multiplicity. It was structural discontinuity. My sense of self wasn’t fragmented into distinct identities. It was compartmentalized, interrupted, sometimes inaccessible. There weren’t others in me. There were just parts of me that I couldn’t always access. My experience was still severely dissociative—but the identity-based framing made it harder to see what was actually happening. It was just me. It was always just me. There are no “others” inside me.
This realization took time. Early on, I didn’t have access to alternative models. The dominant narrative of DID is so entangled with metaphors of plurality and internal communication that it becomes difficult to distinguish the metaphor from the mechanism. For people whose dissociation fits that framing, it can be useful. But for people like me—whose experience involves profound structural disconnection without the sense of separate selves—that narrative can be profoundly misleading.
The result is a kind of conceptual distortion. I wasn’t just struggling with dissociation. I was struggling with the pressure to interpret that dissociation through a model that didn’t match my reality. The metaphor of internal “people” began to overwrite my perception of self, and instead of gaining insight, I became more confused. It took me years to realize that the language I had been taught to use for myself was all wrong.
Eventually, I came to understand that my experience didn’t need to be narrated as multiplicity to be valid. The core issue wasn’t identity—it was access. It was the ability (or inability) to remain continuous across time, across emotion, across memory. That kind of compartmentalization is dissociation in its most literal form: a failure to maintain integrated self-functioning. Not a switch into someone else. Just a disruption in my own continuity.
In hindsight, I can see how damaging it was to be given a model that didn’t fit. The dominant narrative around DID isn’t neutral. It doesn’t simply describe symptoms—it imposes a framework that shapes how people interpret their experiences. For some, that framework resonates. For others, it becomes a conceptual trap—something that replaces clarity with confusion and creates a performative expectation that distorts the underlying reality.
The diagnosis of DID correctly identified that I was experiencing pathological dissociation. But the explanatory model attached to that diagnosis was wrong for me. It failed to capture the specific nature of my symptoms, and it led me to misinterpret what I was going through. The language of parts and alters and systems didn’t help—it obscured.
There are many people like me—people with severe dissociative symptoms who do not interpret them as coming from internal others, and who do not relate to the concept of a system. For us, the dominant DID framework doesn’t offer understanding. It imposes a metaphor that distorts our perception and can even exacerbate our confusion.
You can have pathological dissociation without interpreting it as identity fragmentation. You can lose time, experience emotional compartmentalization, and struggle with internal continuity without conceptualizing yourself as plural. There is no need to divide the self into characters to explain the breakdown of integration. Dissociation can be structural, mechanistic, and depersonalized—without being personified.
This realization was painful, but ultimately freeing. I stopped waiting for others inside me to speak. I stopped interpreting my symptoms through the lens of plurality. I stopped trying to perform a narrative that never fit my reality. And in doing so, I was finally able to understand what was actually happening to me.
Today, the most meaningful healing I’ve found hasn’t come from naming internal parts or reconstructing a narrative of multiplicity—it’s come from identifying, understanding, confronting, and dismantling the subtle psychological habits that made my internal experience fragmented in the first place. What once seemed like internal division, I now recognize as learned patterns of emotional avoidance: affect phobia, avoidant processing, over-intellectualization, emotional overmodulation, compulsive narrative coherence, and a persistent disavowal of negative emotion through overly positive reframing. Together, these habits led to a discrete, rigid, and compartmentalized internal experience. They weren’t evidence of separate selves—they were defense mechanisms: automatic, rigid strategies for managing unbearable emotion. The more I understood them, the less mysterious my dissociation became. I didn’t need to excavate a system—I needed to confront what my mind was protecting me from and slowly build the capacity to stay connected to aspects of life I had once disavowed.
There’s no system here. No alters. No communication between internal selves. There’s just me—a person whose cognitive processing sometimes fragments, whose access to memory is sometimes impaired, and whose emotional integration periodically fails. It’s still dissociation. It’s still serious. But framing it as multiplicity only obscures what it actually is. It doesn’t need to be narrated as anything more than that.
Contact me