Hey There! If You Dont Mind Me Asking, What Does Programmed Mean Coming From A Traumagenic System? Ive

why do people say programming doesn’t exist and that it must be false memories? /gen

Lots of reasons.

Most people don't like to think about other people getting hurt. They also especially do not like to think that children are being hurt. And even more they do not like to think that child abuse is occurring while someone else who could have stopped it was there. This is why when child abuse survivors of any kind tell family members/friends who weren't abusive that so and so abused them, the immediate reaction is typically denial. Whether they accept it later on or not, the initial reaction is usually defense and denial. Even when they do accept it there is often a degree of "how could I have missed that" that these individuals express either to the survivor or to their own friends. People want to keep and uphold the view that most people around them are good. The concept of "groups of people who all decided to abuse children together" is contradictory to that worldview so they discard it, but if you ask them about specific things like child soldiers and trafficking that they have probably heard of (and also probably associate with Poor Uncivilized Third World Countries(tm) instead of happening in their own countries), they will usually say that's real.

Another reason is that most peoples' idea of programming is from media, mostly revolving around like...super powers or a person becoming basically a robot or they think it's all like cults in the woods or whatever. They think TBMC is some sci-fi thing, they don't know what it looks like, and they aren't thinking about the abuse part. And I do think that it kind of sucks that MC is the term because it does sound like some sci-fi/dystopian thing just from the name. It sounds very silly if you don't know much about it. In reality it is pretty boringly based in psychological responses to torture.

Another reason is that FMSF was very successful in their smear campaign despite being made up nearly entirely of parents who had gotten successfully sued for child abuse by their children. The fact that academics even marginally acknowledged them was a mistake IMO. Not to say that I'm not like the other girls but if a group of parents like this started making shit up around me I would simply roll my eyes and ignore them. Unfortunately, psychiatric abuse exists and the famous ones kind of screwed everybody else. Most famous one being Sybil. Instead of getting mad at psychiatric abuse occurring it became a focus on how DID itself is fake and abuse memories a person has discussed in therapy is therefore also fake.

Another is a community issue. There are individuals who saw RA survivors getting attention from court cases and decided that they would Also like to get attention and would make up stories which would eventually get debunked OR they sounded so fictional (because they were) that most people then assumed that all RA survivors were like that. There were and still are also survivors who were so desperate to be believed that they would tell their stories in great detail--except their stories usually also included lies that their groups told them which discredited them. Most of these are lies that the average person would find ridiculous and factually incorrect and so nobody would believe the rest of what they were saying.

Lastly, many RAMCOA survivors are simply not palatable. A lot of us are not the cutesy socially acceptable kind of survivors that people feel pity for and want to give a blanket. Many RAMCOA survivors especially when they first get out or first start processing this are aggressive, lash out, behave erratically, make no sense to anyone, have no/low empathy, say very socially inappropriate things, etc. This goes double if isolation from the rest of the world was a big part of the abuse. And to be clear I do not mean like...ghosts their friends or is a little snarky or has a breakdown sometimes in a cute little corner with quiet little sobs. I mean shit that you would get shunned by polite society and get the cops called on you for. The ones that don't escape (either stayed in or the group dissolved/faded over time) tend to be more stable appearing than escapees but they're still not the type of survivor people care about.

im tired of ppl misusing these terms so:

codependent does not mean two people who have a strong attachment and are very clingy towards one another

codependent means a specific type of unhealthy relationship where one person engages in unhealthy/self-destructive behaviours and the other person becomes their caretaker whilst enabling them, out of a need to feel needed

trauma bonding does not mean two people find common ground because they've both been through similar traumatic events and grow close because they understand each other's experiences

trauma bonding means bonding to your abuser as a survival strategy or due to manipulation. (similar to the concept of stockholm syndrome)

there's something in the woods

I learned about compassion fatigue for the first time when I was a 911 operator for two and a half years. Now I’m experiencing it not from a particular job but from moving through life for so many years stuck in the constant “fawn” trauma response. I compulsively gave and gave and gave for so long that I now have literally nothing left. When I first stopped (for survival) compulsively giving to people out of an empty cup I realized I really had no sense of identity outside of helping people... I was overwhelmed with feelings of fear, obligation and guilt... I’m on a journey now of learning to give to myself before I give to anyone else and it’s honesty really hard. It feels “wrong” but I know that’s conditioning from my childhood. I learned I had to abandon myself to survive. Now my body is forcing me to listen to my needs.

Being called a conspiracy theorist who believed in a global satanic cult trying and a person that was eradicate trans people for saying that programming exists and isn’t a myth was not in my bingo card but it sure as hell made my day a lot worse!

So friendly reminder I do NOT believe in the satanic panic nor do I believe that Silva or whoever they were and other satanic panic people are credible. When I talk about RAMCOA it is based on both research and my own experience as somebody who was viciously abused to the point it destroyed my life and prevented me from being happy ever again (:

As for the book I cited I did not know that it cited satanic panic people as a source because I don’t have the time to read an over 200 page book cover to cover. Sorry for spreading misinformation by sharing that, but it was a fucking mistake.

One of my favourite bits of media history trivia is that back in the Elizabethan period, people used to publish unauthorised copies of plays by sending someone who was good with shorthand to discretely write down all of the play's dialogue while they watched it, then reconstructing the play by combining those notes with audience interviews to recover the stage directions; in some cases, these unauthorised copies are the only record of a given play that survives to the present day. It's one of my favourites for two reasons:

It demonstrates that piracy has always lay at the heart of media preservation; and

Imagine being the 1603 equivalent of the guy with the cell phone camera in the movie theatre, furtively scribbling down notes in a little book and hoping Shakespeare himself doesn't catch you.

What a persecutor is: An alter that harms the system in one way or another. This may be to a specific alter, or to the entire system. This often stems from abuse and/or warped thinking they learned through years of an unhealthy environment.

What a persecutor does not have to be: Aggressive, angry, rude, or violent. Some do act this way, but it is not inherent. Persecutor and rude alter are not synonymous. Keep in mind that while it is very possible for them to act this way, a lot of this can come from being pushed away, insulted, or not listened to, or it may be an unhealthy coping mechanism.

What a persecutor is not: Evil, a parasite, a menace, something to repress, something to try to “lock up” or “get rid of”, the “dark side” of a system, someone who does not deserve to recover, or a lost cause.

Do you know any credible sources on “programming” specifically? I am unclear on the actual definition, I think I went through some things that could be described that way but I don’t understand the difference between “programming” and “grooming” trafficking victims. I previously have only really heard explanations on what programming supposedly is from untrustworthy, conspiracy-ish sources talking about like government mind-control in pop music, but I don’t want to disregard the whole concept if there is better information or research on it.

The term "programming", as I understand it, has fallen out of academic favor due to the connections you mention. Because of this, its definition is somewhat fluid, but I'd generally define programming as:

"The process of using trauma-induced dissociation to implant specific sets of instructions, messages, learned associations, and triggers to produce desired behavior in a victim. It is, at its essence, an extreme form of conditioning, and relies on the use of dissociated parts (alters) to effectively control the victim's mind."

Another source, ra-info.org (one of the oldest sites about RAMCOA on the internet) puts it this way:

"Programming refers both to the process of teaching part of the mind unquestioned obedience and to the content of what is taught. Thus you can say that a person has been programmed to suicide under certain conditions, or you can talk about a suicide program that is triggered (activated) by certain words or conditions."

Grooming for trafficking purposes may or may not use programming methods, as programming requires a level environmental control that not all situations can muster. Programming also typically involves... Well, weirder, more intense stuff. For example, most trafficking operations are not going to use spin programming, but rely more on basic cause & effect. Additionally, grooming may have more of a focus on positive reinforcement, while programming typically doesn't.

And programming is just one end of a large spectrum that encompasses many forms of conditioning, grooming, and abuse; some cases may have some elements of programming (like manipulating dissociative responses to create alters) while not having the structure necessary to do a good job of it. (That's what our case looked like!) Trafficking organizations may not have the money, access, space, or time to implement full programs.

But sources that mention programming by name do exist, and most give their own definition of programming. I'll throw them under a cut because this post is already getting long.

Dialogues With Forgotten Voices by Harvey Schwartz (2000). Generally a great resource so far, I haven't read all of it but what I have gone through is enlightening. Programming is mentioned all through the book but 330 is where more specifics are discussed. Index starts at page 499 so you can peruse topics by your own discretion. His other book, The Alchemy of Wolves & Sheep, covers similar ground (RAMCOA) but with a unique focus (forced perpetration). It's in my pinned post.

Both of Alison Miller's Books, Healing the Unimaginable (2011) and Becoming Yourself (2014). Many survivors swear by these books, and they use the term "programming" throughout. I haven't read these yet but you'll see them referenced constantly.

Safe Passage to Healing by Chrystine Oksana (1994). Another "classic", another book I haven't touched yet. Discusses programming quite a bit and is meant for survivors.

Many of Steven Hassan's works use programming in a slightly more "casual" manner from what I can see—referring to brainwashing at any age in the contexts of cults, as that's Hassan's focus—but helpful for many regardless.

Spin Programming: A Newly Uncovered Technique of Systematic Mind Control by John Lovern (1993) and Common Programs Observed in Survivors of Satanic Ritualistic Abuse by Neswald, Gould, and Graham-Costain (1991). Lumping these together despite the different authors because they're in my "I can't 100% trust these but the information is, in general, useful and many survivors share these" category. The first also includes sketches by survivors, but we're partial to the second one because we don't have spin programming.

On top of this list, there are HUNDREDS of sources that do not use the term "programming" but regardless, refer to similar processes. Too many to list. I hope this is a good starting point though!

Some explanations about dissociated parts and memory, information from The Haunted Self and paraphrased by yours truly.

Every part deserves to have their piece respected, even if it doesn’t seem to fit in neatly with the others, even if you think it’s weirdly shaped, even if it just seems scary. 

And remember: Puzzles are put together one piece at a time.

[Check out my DID/OSDD casually explained masterpost for sources and more infographics!]

Citing outdated research is something I've started seeing a lot of lately. This time I will focus on people utilizing Kluft's 1988 Complex MPD paper to state that polyfragmentation can be as low as part counts in the 20s, that polyfragmentation is "poorly defined and debated," and that severe abuse does not need to occur for polyfragmentation to develop. So let's break this down.

Research is considered outdated if it is 10+ years old (and in some fields, anything 5+ years old). This paper was published 34 years ago.

Kluft's sample was 26 people with 26+ parts, 24 of which are AFAB and 2 are AMAB, 94% white. This is extremely small for a research study and not At All representative of any population.

In the abstract of the paper it states this: "48 of the 76 cases reviewed [...] had dual (2) personalities. Another 12 had 3 personalities. Only 1 individual, a patient with 12 personalities, had more than 8." Emergent research at the time was beginning to show higher parts counts--it cites several authors that put the average as 2-10, 6.3, 13.3, 13.9, 15.4, and 15.8. All of these studies had sample sizes less than 100 (mostly sub-50) except for the 15.8 number which had a sample size of 355. Kluft outright states that alter count is being investigated at that point. Note the vast majority of these studies, including the emergent research, output a lower alter count than is considered average today.

Kluft states that "Somewhat arbitrarily, [he] defined extreme complexity as the presence of at least twice as many alters as the upper limit of the modal range of 8-13, ie 26 or more." Key note here is that this Kluft's personal definition of complexity (not a widespread consensus) at a time when alter count was being openly investigated as essentially an unknown (he is using the upper limit as in the extreme end of averages per the previous emergent research indications, not that this was now widely considered the average alter count). Kluft was one of the very few people who even dealt with complex cases, with most of his colleagues opting to pass them onto him (as is noted in the paper), so essentially there was very little besides his own personal opinion to go off of.

Kluft notes that his observed rate of seeing complex MPD cases "constitute approximately 15-20%" of his patients, and that his "experience with very complex cases began in 1975." This means that of the cases he was seeing over the past decade, only 15-20% of his DID cases had 26+ parts. Or, 80-85% of his clients had fewer than 26 parts.

Kluft's phrasing in this paper that "chaotic and unsafe" home environments are a pathway to complex MPD has been used lately as "proof" that polyfragmentation does not need to occur from RAMCOA or severe abuse settings and can come from simply having an unstable home environment. This is a cherry-picked phrase and should not be used as evidence, because of the next point:

His findings for people with 26+ parts: 100% experienced "long-standing severe abuse." 46% had abuse histories that were documented legally in the 70s or corroborated by witnesses. It is nearly impossible to win a court case NOW against your abuser, much less in the 70s, and having witnesses to abuse is also a marker that the abuse was severe as abusers tend to abuse when others aren't around--for them to escalate is heavy. Not to mention the 70s were much stricter about what was considered abuse. 92% were incest survivors. 58% experienced "vicious torment." 35% were RA survivors. The exact percentage isn't listed but Kluft states that in addition to the 35% RA survivors in his sample, another 1/3rd (~33%) stated that others "manipulated their condition"--due to his grouping the two together I am inclined to think that there were likely overlaps in experience with RA and this, though we can't be sure. It's important to keep in mind here that the alter count is 26+.

What this study states is not that polyfragmentation is ill-defined in 2022. What it states is that in the 1980s, researchers were still trying to figure out what the average alter count even was. Much less polyfragmentation.

This study states that among a small group of people with 26+ parts, all of them had severe abuse histories and the overwhelming majority were incest survivors. This is evidence AGAINST the claim that polyfragmentation can occur in merely unstable households, not for it. Its evidence is that severe abuse is needed to develop above average alter counts, quoting Kluft with the phrase "the more traumata, the more alters." The fact that in a study for 26+ parts, over 1/3rd were RA survivors is a significant marker of this.

Not only this, but it is evidence AGAINST the idea that high alter counts in DID are common at all. If 80-85% of Kluft's patients had under 26 parts, it would indicate that above average alter counts in the 26+ count are a minority and that would indicate that having 100+ parts would be even more so.

Now, current evidence does not support the idea of a tit-for-tat "every trauma = another alter" idea that Kluft put forth. Current evidence shows that 50% of people with DID have 10 or fewer parts, which doesn't discount Kluft's experience of 80-85% of cases having fewer than 26, but does make it more unlikely given our higher average alter count now (as in, it is likely a higher number of people have 26+ parts than Kluft thought). Currently there is a stable definition of polyfragmentation as 100+ parts (with implied complexities), for the past ~15+ years, through the training provided by OEA SIG of the ISSTD and various texts including Christiane Sanderson's Counseling Adult Survivors of CSA. But this is why we should not use decades old research as if it wholly relevant--we can use it as a reference point but it is not accurate or up to date. It's also why cherry-picking phrases in research can lead one to wildly different conclusions than what it actually stated.