Weird multi urban myth

[lb_lee]

Okay, guys, I keep hearing this random "fact" in multi circles.  It's like an urban myth or something, in that I can't find out where it comes from, can't find any evidence for it, but it seems to be taken as true by enough people to get my attention, and "oh, everyone says that," is the only source they can give me.

This "fact" is that one can't become multi after the age of nine. (I've also heard seven from Ralph Allison, but I refuse to believe any statistics a scientist says if they don't give me a source, and Allison strikes me as a fruitcake.)

Seriously, does anyone know where this weird idea comes from?  I don't get it.  I randomly asked a couple other systems we knew about when they became multiple.  For us, it was twelve; for them, it was for middle to high school.  They're like me in that they don't come under the DID criteria, as far as I know, but I fail to see why DID would have this rule and other forms of multiplicity doesn't.

I mean, it's certainly not impossible to be horrifically traumatized after the age of nine.  Ask war vets.  One system told me it was a matter of mental flexibility, but still, what's so magical about the age of nine? (Or seven.  Whatever.) Last I checked, the human brain wasn't like growth plates in bones and once they sealed, that was the end of it.

So I'm curious now.  I know some of you are even bigger multi buffs than I am.  Anyone know where this "statistic" comes from?  And also, does anyone here recall the age at which they turned plural?  Because now I'm curious about how old you guys were when your mental real estate became a sharehouse.

For us, we had imaginary friends from an early age, became soulbonders... god, somewhere around the age of eight or nine or so, and started turning multi through those avenues at the age of twelve.  How about you?

--Rogan

Comments

[collectively.livejournal.com]

Obviously I'm much more on the soulbonder end of the spectrum, but I had imaginary friends when I was a kid; for-real headmates started moving in right about the time my sex drive kicked into high gear. *cough* This is probably shocking to exactly no one.

~Elle

[yonjuunana.livejournal.com]

Let me see, it's a bit hard to pinpoint exactly when we started counting as multiple... Jim's earliest predecessor showed up as an imaginary friend when we were only about 3 or 4, but he didn't start fronting until we were in our early 20's. We started dissociating off into inner world stuff and having autopilot front when we were 10. And we never had more than one really strongly self-aware frontrunner until Jim started fronting and we finally figured out what the heck was going on with us. So... 3? 10? 20? Depending on how you count it? Seems to me like we've always been somewhere on the multiplicity spectrum.

[kathie-d.livejournal.com]

Obviously I know nothing.

But when I was about nine, that was when the imaginary friends started moving out (apart from one fling when I was 18). So maybe the line is just harder to draw between singlet with imaginary friends and multi-kid?

I dunno, clearly. ;-)

[worldofcharlie.livejournal.com]

Carrie was 4, when she was pretty aware...

FYI - this idea came about long before science has made more inroads on how the brain develops from infancy, childhood, adolescence and eventually to adulthood.

Remember back in Freud's Day, all 2 year olds were sexually infatuated with one of their parents, and we have better ideas on how early or how late a child's brain develops since then (what was Freud on anyway? On yeah...oh yeah cocaine). His ideas although very revolutionary, but based on being a bit of a misogynist.

No different here, I think what constitutes the cut-off age with children on how long their brains develop/personalities hasn't really been agreed upon in the scientific community.

I don't think Neurologists and Psychologists are on the same page

Plus these ideas are based on "how far back can you remember your life" but DID is a diagnosis based on being trauma based.
Of course if you fall under DDNOS - you don't fit that model anyway.

[agentak.livejournal.com]

Weve heard that alot to Ive seen it in some did books and everything.Natalie was 5 but its totally not true, we know someone who split of when he was like almost thirty. Im like umm fact check much? lol. Alot of stuff weve found in did books from 'experts' has been totallywrong tho. Its like just cause its not talked about alot they can make it up as they go? Argh. Whatever.

-Jez

[lb-lee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what most bugs is me is that I can't find any support for this. It really bothers me, especially since this is SUPPOSED to be some kind of science.

I mean, I've found interesting studies and stats done on success of integration, self-reported trauma rates in multiples, but never one for that.

--Rogan

[agentak.livejournal.com]

It's beyond annoying. I've tried to look into it myself, but every time I find it in a book or article, the citation for it is referring to another book/article that has a citation to another book/article.... I have no idea who first came up with this.

-Nat

[lb-lee.livejournal.com]

I suspect it might be one of those recursive made-up statistics that get embedded in culture and never leave, like the whole "women talk ten times as much as men" thing.

--Rogan