User talk:Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5

File:Tylasmug.jpg

My passport photo

Invite to work on an ACCURATE DID article

A group of professionals are building two new sites, which will differ from the WP page. Both sites will critique all on the web that deal with DID, including the WP DID page, which is currently one of the worst sites on DID on the entire internet due to it's fringe/minority bias. Right now the WP page presents 2 views rather equally. The main consensus view of the experts in DID and the fringe/minority view called: sociocogntive, which suggests that DID is caused from reading books and watching movies. It also claims that DID is only caused when someone goes to therapy, as an adult, ignoring the horrendous and violent childhood most of these people have suffered.

The worlds top researchers in DID report that there is NO actual research for the sociocognitive POV.

There seem to be 2 reasons for this fringe theory to persist: 1) To cover for child abusers and pedophiles. 2) Health care professionals inability to change their POV as new discoveries have become mainstream consensus in the expert community.

Awards - overdue and richly deserved

✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♥✫¸ℒℴν­­ℯ.♥♥⋱.♥♥ ℒℴνℯ.♥♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♥✫¸ℒℴν­­ℯ.♥♥⋱✫.♥♥ ℒℴνℯ.♥♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸ℒℴνℯ.♥♥✫¸ℒℴν­­ℯ.♥♥⋱ℒℴνℯ.♥♥⋱¸¸.·´¯`✫¸ℒℴνℯ

I've been around Wikipedia for a while, but I've never before seen your rare combination of perspicacity and civility. I wanted to give recognition to your remarkable contributions to the ongoing struggle to make the Dissociative Identity Disorder article more correct and useful. When I entered into this struggle, I didn't expect to encounter someone with my level of passion and persistence for this subject. Surprise!!!

I am continually amazed, delighted, and gratified by your contributions. It is a remarkable gift to the community, both small (Wikipedian - rather large, actually) and large (the rest of the blessed world!). I am well beyond grateful for what you do. I therefore have no choice but to award you TWO barnstars simultaneously (I've never seen this done before); to do less would be to perpetrate a misrepresentation of your value to us:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to Tylas for her untiring responsiveness in the torrent of hostile chatter that has characterized the Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder page in recent weeks, as well as her multiple valuable contributions to the article itself. Your knowledge of the literature is manifestly broad and deep, and your many ways of sharing this knowledge is an educational experience for all us who are capable of learning (and a missed wakeup call for all others!) Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Awarded to Tylas for her unfailing politeness and good humor, in the face of a broad range of uncouth and completely uncalled-for responses and behavior, while working on the Wikipedia DID article. I've never before in my entire life seen such an impressive display of the power of "nice". Awesome, thought-provoking, and effective. Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww.....! Thank you! I am blushing from head to toes! :) I got barn stars! I am so excited! ~ty (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now we gotta find you a barn. That'll take a little time. I just know I have one around here somewhere...Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GOT IT! Milk cow barn, north of Everson, Washington [(c) Tom Cloyd]. (It was a bitterly cold day - Christmas eve, 2008.) Am deeding this to you. It needs more barnstars, though. Get back to work! Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Home barn of the wild Tylas

Ha ha... you are too funny. -laughing- ~ty (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for all your hard work on wikipedia. your awesome.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww!! You are a sweetheart! Thank you! ~ty (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi Tylas! Although you may not have a big number of edits, but you have been on Wikipedia for a long time and i feel that you can surely contribute your best here more often in many articles and other areas too! A nice editor with great potential and a good friend :). Hope to see you around more soon :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank You! That is kind of you! I keep trying to edit the DID page and run into an obstacle. Maybe some day it will be more new editor friendly.~ty (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You Are a Superhero!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Tylas for her valiant assault against the fradulant use of Wikipedia to silence survivors of severe child abuse through gross misrepresentation of its symptoms (i.e., Dissociative Identity Disorder). Thank you! Daniel Santos (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Z147

If they had an actual "Superhero" award, I would have given you that instead! Thank you so much! Daniel Santos (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww! You have made my morning. Each day I wake wondering if a "silencer" will be here to attack and instead I am greeting with a friend. :) ~ty (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

DID

Tylas, You are welcome for the help with the DID article. I am researching the condition, looking for "conservative" treatment options. Specifically, I am looking to assess the strength of the evidence for or against any proposed therapies. Do you have any information along those lines? If so, will you please point me in the right direction? Thank you, --jcarroll (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Check this out if you have not already. Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, Third Revision". Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 188–212. DOI:10.1080/15299732.2011.537248 I am going through treatment right now for DID. It's imperative to have the correct treatment, which I have been lucky enough to receive, but I am still on Phase I. 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Content Expert Banned

Tylas, I'm sorry to see you go, though I definitely understand if that is your choice. If you feel you can, it may be worth dropping by the administrators' noticeboard one last time to register a formal "Oppose" vote. All the best. —danhash (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I will continue to monitor the admin board, of course, until this is resolved, but I realize that no one is going to be able to ever edit the DID page as long as WLU is there. I noticed your posts there and like them! You are awesome! ~ty (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider leaving. Maybe take a couple days off and see how that treats you? GL either way Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I will pop in once in a while and see if I can edit anything. In the past 2 editors (you know who) dive in almost as soon as I post something to delete it and argue it.~ty (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Be happy!

You are getting very sleepy...you will not argue, obsess, swear at me, wikilawyer, or endlessly site WP rules to try and get your way...

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Have a Wonderful Day everyone!

I do clean up this page once in a while. I like to keep happy stuff here. :)

Smiles for you!

TheGeneralUser (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Just came around to say Hi :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Awwww... this made my day! I never come to WP expecting anything good, but this is awesome! Are you the same Generaluser that has worked on the DID page before? If so, this is probably a sympathy smile. ;) ~ty (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tylas! I don't know to which 'GeneralUser' are you referring to ? and i have never previously edited or worked on Dissociative identity disorder article before (as of this writing) but might work on it in the future :D. And as far as i know there is only one TheGeneralUser on Wikipedia and also on every other Wikimedia wiki who has a global account and that is me :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi GU! You are so right. The id I was thinking of is Standard Name. That would be wonderful if you came to work on the DID page!~ty (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Heya!

Hi Tylas! I went ahead and created you an adoption page :) You can follow the course if you like, or you can just ask me for help on whatever you want. You can find it here. Let me know if there's anything you need. Worm^TT(talk) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh it's so hard as a female to talk to a worm, so I will call you Dave. Dave is a nice name. Thank you! I will fill out this paper and I have so many things to ask! I desperately need help with WP ins and outs. ~ty (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

autism

Hi,

Much like DID, ADHD and others, autism has witnessed an explosion of diagnoses in the last couple of decades from somthing like 1–2 per 1,000 people worldwide to 11 per 1,000 children in the United States are diagnosed with ASD as of 2008 (from the autism article) and much higher today. Also "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s, partly due to changes in diagnostic practice; the question of whether actual prevalence has increased is unresolved." - just like DID. We can expect to see more of this, driven by advocacy groups. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. see ADHD#Controversies - way more controversial than DID. DID is receiving decreased attention and interest now. Hence the difficulty in finding recent research on DID. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A View of what's going on at the DID page

The world's top researchers in DID report that there is no actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). The expert consensus presents 3 models for DID etiology and the SCM is not one of them. There is no empirical support for the SCM. pdf fileGo here for in-depth information on this problem at WP.

Reference: Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 12:2, 2011 (2011). The full pdf file is online for free.

WP Rules that I think are important here:

• It is the job of Wikipedia to summarize the consensus model of any field, and the ISSTD pdf file has done that for us in their 2011 review paper commissioned by the DSM-5 work group, and the current edition of the DSM. In none of these is there any mention of the SGM as credible in anyway. There is no other consensus. This document pdf file simply has no competition.

• "Fringe opinions simply are not competitors with the professional consensus"
• "Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown."

This is the consensus statement of the international professional association for clinicians and researchers into trauma and dissociation disorders. There is no competing or contending association. There is no competing consensus statement. If anyone wishes to dispute importance they may do so, but your opinion (or mine) is not of value here - as we are not experts on DID. Any sources you may cite will also just be opinions, albeit published ones; the proponents of the SCM have no data. There is nothing to empirically resolve, as there is no empirical support for the SC method. The "belief" of the authors supporting the SC motel, is all you have. Science is not about belief, it is about data. They have none. The models approved by the expert consensus on DID have plenty, and the opinion of the centrist consensus is that the data indicate the validity of the traumagenic model. That is the fact, and that's what we must report. Since the DSM-III, DID has been attributed to trauma, in statements which express probability, not certainty. Science is never about certainty, but rather about degrees of probability. The consistent statement of the DSM is that DID is most likely caused by childhood trauma. The DSM does make explicit statements. It is mainstream because it is the professional association for the topic. Again, this is obvious. There is no conflict here. The expert consensus statement clearly explains the mainstream expert consensus on DID. There are a number of criticisms of it, as there are of the DSM, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible, the US Constitution, UN Charter, ad infinitum. To assert that there is no consensus because there is dispute is to misunderstand the nature of the word. When I consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged), it is clear that current usage allows "consensus" to mean a number of things, and there is conflict (lack of consensus) as to which meaning is preferred. It can mean unanimity. It can also mean majority. The central thrust of the definition given is "general agreement" or "collective opinion". You can lean on which ever flavor of the cited usages support your POV, can you not?

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Heya Tylas! I am greatly happy and thankful to have received your sweet smile . You are one of those Wikipedians who always try to defuse conflicts, consistently lighten the mood and always make Wikipedia an Awesome place to be ! Keep up the great work by editing and improving Wikipedia like you always do as you have a great future ahead. I am confident that we both will strive and work together to make Wikipedia the best! Regards and Happy Editing!! TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh! You are a sweetheart! Thank you so much! I am trying really hard to make a little corner of WP an accurate place for people to get their information. Tanya~talk page 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User Page formatting

Hi Tylas :). I saw your user page and you have indeed made it look very beautiful and wonderful with all the information, pictures and userboxes in it ! But i think there are some minor user page corrections that need to be done. Some part of the content is hidden on the backside of the userboxes and can't be seen. I too had a similar kind of problem on my user page some time ago, but i had got it corrected with another editor's help. If you can do it on your own, that's great. If there is any problem, feel free to contact me and i will get the required help for you as soon as possible. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had an urge the other day and it took over. On my computer it looks great, but on my net book it looks bad. I will be out of town all day, and can fumble with it when I get back. If you or anyone else knows how to fix it, please do so! I would love it! You are a gem here at WP! I make websites, but I mostly concentrate on content and get lost in the actual webdesign! Tanya~talk page 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tylas, I have fixed the user page formatting where the userboxes were conflicting with rest of the content on the page. You are free to change it as you like to :). If you want to have any other major design changes then i will get help from other editor's. Hope my edit corrected that minor issue. Regards! TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi General User - the page does need a bit more tweaking. I am using firefox, but apparently it is showing different on different browsers. The only difference I see now is the boxes on the right are under the about me text. The "about me" still only goes about halfway across the page how I wanted it - what you must have sees is that the boxes overlap that text. On my lap top it just showed the boxes under the "about me" section. I want to make the about me and the boxes side by side without covering anything and have it show that on all browsers.

I feel like I have a guardian angel watching over me. You make me feel at ease in, what so far as I have experienced, is a hostile environment in WP. I cannot thank you enough for your kindness. On another note, I hope you come and work on the DID page, like you mentioned once on my user page, if you have the time and interest of course. Right now we are just waiting for our peer reviewer to return from vacation. I have put up an argument that cannot be refuted (currently on the talk page), but these 2 guys keep pulling up fringe stuff to try and also try and cover up this main debate with all kinds of nonsense. Here I am venting at you. Sorry, but if you need a project we could sure use someone there that is unbiased and understands what expert consensus is vs fringe ideas. Right now I am getting attacked right and left by 2 men there, and without some help there is little hope of ever getting an accurate page on DID. They just delete and revert all I do. Tanya~talk page 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand this deep situation very well Tylas. However right now i haven't read the full dispute which is going on the DID page, as i come to Wikipedia at random hours of the day and focus mainly on maintenance and administration of the project and sometimes write article content to random articles whenever i get the chance. I see a peer review has been started on the talk page and will continue for some time. If you do not get the desired result and you wish to seek input to form a more greater and neutral consensus, then i suggest you go for Wikipedia:Request for comment which is a part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is an easy method which will invite other editors with the interest to express and give their comment of the article's talk page to form an actual consensus. I am really sorry that i cannot help you out fully, as i am not a subject expert like you on the topic, but i will fully cooperate with you and help you out as much as i can. And as Worm That Turned has also said below that he is also ready to help you out in some way or the other. Again my deepest apologies if i couldn't help you directly. I wish everything will turn out better and good for everyone once the required consensus has been formed :). And thanks a lot for the trust and faith you have in me which i am confident i will always hold it true and keep it up :-). Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I smile when I see a message from you. You brighten my day. I summarize the "dispute" below. Anywhere but WP it would not even be a problem, but the politics here makes it a problem, when it should not be. The peer reviewer seems to be wonderful so far but his vacation began almost as soon as the peer review began - I have great hope for that process and patiently await his return home. By the way, to work on the DID article, I don't think an editor needs to be an expert in DID, but they do need to come without a preconceived idea of what DID is - one formed from the media, past psychology education that is now obsolete or a desire to cover up child abuse. They need to come and report the expert consensus view of DID. Thanks for replying! Tanya~talk page 23:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure to help

Hi Tylas! I hope all's going well with you. You haven't heard from me in a little while, and there's a number of reasons for that - firstly, I'm terribly busy in real life, so am cutting down a lot of on-wiki stuff at the moment. Secondly, because I've been trying to get my head around the DID article and the arguments on both sides. I should mention that MathewTownsend has also previously run through my mentorship program, he's a good guy, but like you he strongly believes in whatever stance he takes.

Unfortunately, since you've noticed the subject of this section... I've failed. Quite simply, I don't have the attention span or the interest in DID to make a reasonable judgement. My knowledge doesn't extend far enough that I could know a reliable source from an unreliable one, let alone a leading expert from a fringe scientist.

What I will say, is that I am willing to vouch for Mathew here. He's not a "hard-core believer in fringe theories". I've watched his editing for a long time, and whilst he can be a bit pig-headed, he reads sources and does a good job of summarizing them. At the moment, the only evidence that I've seen that the sociocognitive model of view is fringe, and the "top scientists" all believe something else is your testimony. I'm not doubting you, I just can't take one person's word for it. I'm sure you'd be able to find a dozen sources confirming your point of view, but the level of detail I'd need to go into to find out if they were reliable... it's just not something I'm able or willing to do.

Now, I can help you by point out methods of dispute resolution (I'll rearrange the lessons, to progress that one if you like). I can help with conduct issues, and hypothetical situations, but I'm just not the right person to answer in depth questions on medical content. I'm very sorry. Worm^TT(talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dave! Yep, I understand all that and I do believe in Mathew, it's just this is one little corner of WP, Mathew has some preconceived ideas that affect him. Other than that, I think he is a top notch editor - as you can see from the awards I have given him. You may not know this, but it is Mathew that suggested I come to you for training. I think his heart is in the right place. The real problem on the DID page is the other editor - and somehow Mathew is getting the blame. You talk about arbitration, but from my experience on WP those that face WLU, among his friends at arbitration, end up like this.

It does not take anyone with a medical background to answer the question of what should be presented on the DID page since that question has already been answered by an expert consensus of those who are considered the top in the field of DID. The problem is simply getting WP to present the expert consensus instead of pop culture ideas - which means WLU needs to let go of the sociocognitive method (it is not a model) at least on the medical page about DID - he can publish that nonsense all he wants on the pop culture pages about DID.

Here is what the expert consensus is right now expressed in a review as as the new guidelines and recommendations for treating DID today and they are authored by many of the top experts in DID - look at the end of the pdf for an overwhelming number of authors on this 74 page long document.

The expert consensus statement about the sociocognitive method (watching TV, reading books causes DID - like you watch a movie about a psychopath and you will become one because you think it's cool or something) presented in the review says of the sociocognitive model that: ..."there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis." (p.124) pdf file

On the otherhand, the expert consensus as reported in this 2011, 74 page review says the expert consensus is that they accept 3 models of etiology. (On the WP page these 3 models are all thrown on the DID page as one and confused and muddled, and the all contrasted against the sociocognitive method as if it has equal expert supports when in fact it has none other than a little here and there from those who are not experts in DID.) (p.123-124) pdf

Tylas,

Let me see if I can explain this. You keep citing the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation as "the experts". As far as the other POV is concerned, that's "International Society for the Purpose of Proving that DID is Exclusively Caused by Trauma, No Matter What the Facts Might Be". They publish a journal, Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, written by and for people who have already decided that DID is always caused by trauma. It might as well be called Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds, So Don't Even Bother Talking about Other Ideas.

Asking these people what causes DID is like asking an Atkins fanatic whether you should eat a low-fat diet. The die-hard Atkins folks aren't going to give you a careful, balanced argument and consider your particular situation. They're going to tell you that low-fat diets are poisonous and that there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support it. They've already made up their minds, surrounded themselves with like-minded people, and they're not interested in anyone who disagrees with them.

The real scientific consensus is not found at any Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds—neither in the Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds And It's All Trauma nor in the Journal of We've Already Made Up Our Minds And It's Never Trauma. The real scientific consensus is found in the DSM, in major psychiatric textbooks, and in journals that are not sponsored by one faction in a controversy.

So you keep saying "the expert consensus" says this or that. Here's what I'm telling you: "the expert consensus" is not saying that. The experts who happen to hold one POV are saying that. The experts who happen to hold a different POV are saying something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of the expert consensus on DID

Below are quotes from the 2011 expert consensus on DID. It is not necessary for anyone to read or understand them - but it is necessary for everyone to understand that this is the consensus of the top experts on DID - and if I understand WP, this is what should be presented on the WP DID page. The expert consensus statement on treatment guidelines for DID states that there is actual research for the sociocognitive method. This dissenting view, with no research, is just speculation. The expert consensus in DID reports that there is no actual research for the sociocognitive method (SCM). With no research support, any alternative ideas are just speculations. pdf file (p.124) Tanya~talk page 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert consensus model I

• "...alternate identities result from the inability of many traumatized children to develop a unified sense of self that is maintained across various behavioral states, particularly if the traumatic exposure first occurs before the age of 5. These difficulties often occur in the context of relational or attachment disruption that may precede and set the stage for abuse and the development of dissociative coping." "Fragmentation and encapsulation of traumatic experiences may serve to protect relationships with important (though inadequate or abusive) caregivers and allow for more normal maturation in other developmental areas, such as intellectual, interpersonal, and artistic endeavors. In this way, early life dissociation may serve as a type of developmental resiliency factor despite the severe psychiatric disturbances that characterize DID patients." "Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their effects on the child’s overall development. "...disturbed caregiver–child attachments and parenting further disrupt the child’s ability to integrate experiences" Secondary structuring of these discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence, and adulthood." (p.122-123) pdf file

Expert consensus model II

• ...posits that the development of DID requires the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c)secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and needing to find his or her own ways of moderating distress. The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators, significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme withdrawal into fantasy, among others." (p.122-123) pdf file

Expert consensus model III

• "This theory suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense. Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in response to life threat, such as fight/flight, not to the psychodynamic notion of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional emotional parts of the personality." (p.123) pdf file

Summary from the paper

• "In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise from a previously mature, unified mind or “core personality” that becomes shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond) during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities. (p.123) pdf file Tanya~talk page 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)