Plurality is not a social media trend—it’s history, identity, and community.
This is a special preview of our 6,000-word article, ‘The Evolution of Plurality: Our History, Our Truth, Our Future,’ released in honor of DID Awareness Day 2025.
Author: The Stronghold System, Founders of The Plural Association Nonprofit
Disclaimer: This article discusses plurality as an umbrella term that includes both disordered (DID/OSDD) and non-disordered experiences. While DID is a recognized psychiatric condition, not all plural experiences fit within medical models. The goal of this article is to provide historical context and advocate for community-led understanding—not to dismiss clinical plurality, like DID and OSDD, or invalidate those who need diagnosis, treatment, and support.
Plurality has existed across history, cultures, and medical discourse, yet it continues to be misrepresented as a modern internet trend. This article explores the historical and cultural roots of Plurality, challenges psychiatric misconceptions, and presents data from the 2024 Plural Census to highlight how Plural-identified professionals and communities are reclaiming their narratives.
Introduction: Why This Article Now?
In 2020, we wrote the Plurality FAQ to address misconceptions about plurality, clarify the difference between DID and plural identities, and provide an inclusive framework for all who experience being Many. Three years later, in 2023, The Plural Association (TPA) and the plural community organized a large-scale response to the McLean Hospital video and ISSTD conference panel that framed self-identified plurals as a “social contagion,” resulting in a petition that gathered over 3,000 signatures.
Now, in 2025, Harvard has published a paper claiming that the rise in self-diagnosed cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is largely a result of social media influence. While the paper discusses valid concerns about misinformation, it presents an incomplete and, at times, misleading view of plural history. The author’s framing erases centuries of plurality’s existence in cultural, spiritual, and community contexts, portraying it instead as a recent online phenomenon.
The 2024 Plural Census: Community Data on Plural Experiences
While academic institutions continue to ignore plural perspectives in favor of outdated clinical narratives, community-led efforts—such as the Plural Census—are beginning to provide valuable insights into plural experiences outside of psychiatric frameworks.
The 2024 Plural Census was an online community survey, hosted by The Plural Association (TPA), running from May to December 2024. It was launched during the Plural Positivity World Conference 2024, which had 1000 registrations, it was also shared on Instagram and Facebook, in Plural discord servers, as well as inside The Plural Association Community for Plurals. It gathered voluntary, anonymous responses from Plurals worldwide, to better understand their experiences, identities, and needs, and had a total of 477 responses.
After receiving feedback from plurals in the community, I was urged to highlight the social justice movement behind the ‘plural’ label—many have shared that discovering an inclusive space for their experiences not only changed their lives, but in many cases, saved them.
These findings underscore that plurality cannot be reduced to a set of clinical assumptions—it’s a complex, lived reality that demands a more inclusive, informed approach.
2024 Plural Census data shows that over half (60%) of 343 respondents do not identify as being ‘parts’ or ‘self-states’ of one person, challenging clinical assumptions about identity in plurality (see figure below). This finding underscores the need to broaden our perspective on what plurality can be—well beyond restrictive medical definitions or assumptions.
477 participants in the 2024 Plural Census reveals:👉 97% favor functional multiplicity or similar approaches over fusion integration. 👉 93% experienced overwhelming or adverse early childhood experiences. 👉 87% describe their experience as neurodivergent. 👉 80% would choose to remain Plural, even if they could take a “magic pill.” 👉 77% experience joy in their Plurality. |
Why Is Harvard Watching TikToks Instead of Fixing a 93% Misdiagnosis Rate?
Harvard’s own 2016 research (Brand et al.) stated that obtaining a professional DID diagnosis takes 6 to 12 years due to frequent misdiagnosis. Yet, in 2025, they attack self-identification instead of addressing why clinicians are still failing to recognize DID correctly. Why does Harvard question self-diagnosed Plurals, but not the clinicians who misdiagnose DID for over a decade? Rather than examining why so many people remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for years, Harvard’s focus on social media narratives sidesteps the glaring failures in clinical training.
If Harvard is truly concerned about DID misdiagnosis, why aren’t they pushing for updated clinician training and treatment guidelines instead of blaming social media? The last official treatment guidelines for DID, by the ISSTD, were published in 2011—fourteen years ago. In that time, research on trauma, dissociation, and neurodiversity has advanced significantly, yet psychiatrists and psychologists are still operating under outdated information. Worse, DID remains one of the least taught conditions in medical education, meaning many clinicians never receive proper training on how to recognize it in the first place. If DID is being misdiagnosed 93% of the time, the real crisis is not self-identification—it’s the complete failure of the mental health system to train its own professionals to do their jobs correctly.
If we take Harvard’s 2016 data at face value, psychologists correctly identified DID 41% of the time, while psychiatrists only got it right in 7% of cases. That means a psychiatrist misdiagnoses DID 93% of the time. So, if we believe Harvard’s own research, you statistically have a better chance of recognizing DID correctly than a psychiatrist does. And yet, the Harvard 2025 paper dismisses self-identification outright—without addressing that trained professionals fail to identify DID in 93% of cases when they don’t have the right training. Why is Harvard watching TikToks and not training psychiatrists?
Even more bizarrely, two of the same authors from the 2025 paper were co-authors of Harvard’s 2016 study that identified this systemic failure. Did they forget their own research, or are they hoping no one else remembers? If the 2025 Harvard authors can’t cite their own past work correctly, why should we trust their analysis of DID on TikTok?
The assertion that social media is responsible for the rise in plurality is another flawed aspect of Harvard’s paper. Plurality has existed long before the internet; social media has only provided a space for people to connect, share, and find language for their experiences. It is not that plurality is “spreading” as a trend, but rather that people now have access to information and support networks that did not exist before. The claim that social media causes plurality dismisses the lived realities of those who have always experienced being Many, even before they had words for it. By overlooking this deep history, Harvard’s new paper reduces a rich human experience to a mere online fad.
Plurality is not new. It has been recognized, recorded, and experienced across cultures, centuries, and belief systems. From spiritual traditions to medical classifications, community-building, and legal recognition, the history of plurality is far more expansive than Harvard’s published paper suggests.
Before the 1800s, many Indigenous cultures and spiritual traditions embraced the idea that a person could contain multiple spirits or identities. Examples include Iroquois traditions, Hindu deities with multiple aspects, and spirit possession in African, Jewish, and Southeast Asian traditions. Mediums and shamans throughout history were revered for their ability to “channel” multiple entities. In these societies, plurality was not considered a disorder but rather a gift or spiritual role. Recognizing these diverse contexts reminds us that plurality has been acknowledged as normal—and even beneficial—in many societies.
Plurality is a diverse experience that can be understood and affirmed through multiple lenses, including:
- A cultural experience – Many societies have long recognized and even valued plurality outside of medical frameworks.
- A spiritual experience – The ICD-11 directly acknowledges that spiritual practitioners who experience multiplicity should not be automatically classified as disordered.
- A social justice model – This approach validates the lived experiences of those who choose to define their plurality outside of traditional medical models, emphasizing empowerment, self-determination, and the right to belong without being pathologized.
- A neurotype – Plurality itself is seen as a neurotype by some, much like autism or ADHD, and is often considered part of natural cognitive diversity or neurodivergence.
As Obscura eloquently explains in her 2024 Plural Positivity World Conference presentation, Plural: Neurodiversity, Neurominority:
‘’As is the case with many terms and movements, we have seen many attempt to claim and shift neurodiversity, as a tool for exclusion, but nothing could be further from the truth. Neurodivergent was coined to mean neurologically different from typical. Kassiane Asasumasu deliberately coined this term to be as inclusive as possible. It includes mental illnesses, it includes brain damage, and it includes things that are just a bit different from normal. Neurodivergent just means a brain that diverges. It’s specifically a tool of inclusion. So Plural is another term along the same lines as neurodivergent—deliberately inclusive, with intentionally vague boundaries. It is very clear that Plurals are neurodivergent, whether they consider themselves disordered or otherwise.’’
This perspective highlights how Plurality, much like neurodivergence, is inherently inclusive and self-defined. It challenges attempts to exclude or pathologize Plurality by reinforcing that divergence from the norm is not inherently disordered—it is simply different. Acknowledging plurality within the neurodiversity framework allows for a broader understanding that goes beyond mere clinical labels and embraces people’s lived experiences.
87% of 2024 Plural Census respondents identify their experience as a neurodivergence, further supporting the argument that plurality exists beyond psychiatric models.
In summary, research, lived experience, and community data all point to the same conclusion: plurality is broader and more diverse than outdated clinical models allow. Recognizing and respecting this diversity is the first step toward reducing misdiagnoses and empowering Plurals worldwide. Our shared commitment to social justice and community advocacy is not only redefining plurality but, for many, saving lives.
Key Takeaways
- Plurality isn’t new: It has been recognized throughout history, across cultures, and in spiritual traditions—not just in recent social media trends.
- Harvard’s own data shows clinician failures: According to Harvard’s 2016 research, psychiatrists misdiagnose DID 93% of the time; the real issue is lack of proper training, not “TikTok influence.”
- Outdated clinical guidelines: The last official DID treatment guidelines were published in 2011, leaving a 14-year gap in updated education and contributing to ongoing misdiagnoses.
- 2024 Plural Census challenges assumptions: Most respondents (60%) do not identify as “parts of one person,” and 87% see plurality as a form of neurodivergence—indicating broader frameworks are needed beyond strictly medical models.
- Plurality spans identity, culture, and spirituality: For many, being Many is more than a diagnosis; it can also be a cultural or spiritual role, or part of their neurodivergent identity.
- Community advocacy is crucial: Rather than blaming those who self-identify, we need better education for professionals and more community-led research, so that Plurals can access informed, compassionate care.
As always, we encourage you and your System to follow your own truth, to soul search, to find words, labels, visions, theories and communities that aren’t only within your values but also match your lived experience and/or long term goals, so that you might find belonging and don’t have to try to fit in.
Thank you for investing the time to read this article. Please feel welcome to leave comments or feedback in the comment section.
Disclaimer: Thank you for reading our peer article; we hope it was empowering, informative and helpful for you and your System. There are as many Plural experiences, as there are Plurals. So not all information on this website might apply to your situation or be helpful to you; please, use caution. We’re not doctors or clinicians and our nonprofit, our work, and this website in no way provide medical advice, nor does it replace therapy or medication in other ways.
About the authors
The Stronghold System are the proud volunteer founders & CEO of The Plural Association Nonprofit. They are from the Netherlands and reside in a 30-something-year-old body, are nonbinary, parents of an amazing child & 3 cats. They got diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder over 10 years ago & also self ID as Plural.