I recently saw a couple of videos on a well-known SM platform purporting to be from folks with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Moving between 'alters' seemed to be the dominant theme. This is what DID actually is: 🧵
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is not a TikTok aesthetic or a theatrical trend. It is one of the rarest and most severe trauma responses known to the human psyche and when it does present, it is quietly devastating.
DID does not emerge from ordinary childhood hardship. It is born of chronic, unthinkable trauma, often severe sexual abuse, during the years when the self is still forming. It is not a choice, but the psyche’s last resort to avoid obliteration.
The psyche fragments not for attention but out of necessity. 'Alters' are not characters, they are dissociated parts of the self, each carrying unbearable memories, affects, or experiences that could not be metabolised at the time.
Contrary to social media portrayals, most with DID do not perform visible ‘switches’. More common are dissociative amnesia, profound confusion, and identity disturbance. The condition is rarely diagnosed, and even more rarely understood even by clinicians.
The danger of such social media trends is twofold:
They trivialise severe trauma, and they risk encouraging vulnerable young people to self-diagnose or emulate symptoms without comprehension of their gravity.
Clinically, DID does not look like costume changes. It looks like silence, fragmented memory and deep relational terror. It demands a slow, careful process of safety-building and integration, often over the course of many years.
The task of therapy is not to organise or ‘present’ the alters. It is to support the person in reclaiming continuity, coherence, and the capacity to exist safely in a body and mind that once felt too dangerous to inhabit.
Most therapists will never see a true case of DID. But for those who do, curiosity must be paired with competence. Without specialist knowledge and supervision, the condition is often misdiagnosed, or missed entirely.
DID is not entertainment. It is the mind’s defence against collapse into psychosis or non-being. It deserves clinical seriousness, ethical respect, and cultural sensitivity, not performance, spectacle, or fame.
In fifteen years in the field, I have only ever worked with one case. Want to know more? 👇
Why so much research into addiction is plain wrong. 🧵
Addiction is not simply a compulsion or a moral failing. It is a maligned form of attachment. When early caregivers are absent, frightening, or unpredictable, the child turns to internal strategies.
Psychoanalyst John Bowlby argued that the need for attachment is as essential as food or oxygen. When that need goes unmet, the developing mind seeks alternatives. Addiction becomes an emotional prosthesis, not to feel good, but to feel less alone and more regulated.
Substances, food, gambling, pornography, none of these are random. They are surrogate caregivers. They soothe, regulate, and respond on demand. The addict bonds to the substance in the same way a child bonds to a caregiver who both comforts and frightens.
Winnicott famously said: “There is no such thing as a baby… there is a baby and someone.”
He meant that human beings only exist in relationship.
A mind emerges with & through another mind.
This has radical implications for therapy.👇
The infant is not born with a self.
It is the mother’s presence, her mind, that creates the space for the baby’s mind to form.
Psychotherapy takes this idea seriously: it doesn’t treat the patient as a sealed-off unit, but as a person formed and reformed in relation to another.
In the consulting room, the psychotherapist is not a technician applying a treatment. Not if they are any good.
They are a person-to-person presence.
The patient uses the therapist’s mind to think, feel, symbolise, and ultimately, to become.
Why AI “therapy” between sessions may feel helpful - but is quietly undermining real psychotherapy and change. 🧵
I am seeing more and more articles about how AI can be used to support patients between sessions. This is why this is a bad idea:
Depth therapy is not about symptom management between sessions. It’s about developing a new capacity to be alone in the presence of the other. The space between sessions is not a void—it’s a vital part of the work.
In object relations theory, the capacity to hold the therapist in mind - to internalise them - between sessions is central to psychic development. This is the work of object constancy. Using AI for artificial soothing interrupts this.
Many people come to therapy saying they want to "feel happier." But what does that mean?
And is happiness really the opposite of depression?
Not in my opinion. Let’s take a closer look. 🧵
Depression has entered our everyday vocabulary.
We say “I feel depressed” to mean sadness.
We confuse it with grief.
We use it diagnostically to prescribe SSRIs.
But in analytic therapy, depression is not just sadness. It’s a state of inner deadness.
Depression dulls life. It renders meaning flat. It is psychic inertia.
In that sense, yes - it seems like the opposite of happiness.
But framing it this way misses something vital. Not just clinically, but existentially.
Splitting is a primitive defence.
We all use it, but some adults rely on it.
However, in early life, it is essential for us all.
Why?
Because the infant cannot yet bear ambivalence—that something can be both good and bad. 🧵
Melanie Klein described this through the metaphor of the breast.
To the infant, the breast is not just food. The breast “fills up” the infant with the mother.
It is the infant’s world.
And the world is either good (satisfying) or bad (withholding, frustrating).
The “good breast” feeds, soothes, responds.
The “bad breast” denies, disappears, misattunes.
And in early infancy, these cannot be integrated.
The infant splits them apart to survive the unbearable.
What are psychological defences and why do we call them 'defences' - what do they defend against?
Psychological defences are unconscious operations of the ego that protect the individual from overwhelming affect, internal conflict, or psychic disintegration. 🧵
A psychological defence is the psyche’s way of saying:
“This is too much.”
Too much pain, shame, desire, dependency.
Defences keep the unbearable out of consciousness for survival of the psyche, but at the cost of aliveness and freedom.
Psychological defences are not signs of weakness. We ALL have psychological defences.
They are traces and evidence of early relational trauma—constructed to protect the self when the environment could not.
To dismantle them without care is to risk collapse of the patient.