Hello budding sprouts, I, Sniper, am back with explaining the Validation Spectrum Model used to explain system discourse. Here is also a?trigger warning that there will be mentions of ending attempts, fakeclaiming, symptoms of trauma-related disorders and such. Reader discretion is heavily advised.

Melissa has stated before what the VSM stands for, but just in case if you haven't read it, here is what it stands for: the Validation Spectrum Model. We dedicate this model to explaining system discourse and what does and doesn't make a system "real" in syscourse.

Now, I will be describing and explaining what it means to be in the middle of the Validation Spectrum. The five factors that were mentioned previously would be accounted for, but we will add a few more things to connect and introduce the other side of the spectrum as well.

Here is a diagram of where the description and explanation will sit at on the spectrum:

And moving on to the points.

1. May or May Not Have Diagnosis

   If a system isn't diagnosed, and the rest of the points are marked the same as below, it is likely that the system's validity would be heavily debated. However, it should be noted that even if a system has a diagnosis and marks low for other points, the system would still be put on the middle spot between validity and invalidity.

2. May Not Talk About Trauma

   Facing trauma (or say one has faced trauma) is one of the dependent factor of validity in syscourse. If a system says that they experienced trauma, it is likely that they would be put higher than the middle of the spectrum. However, if other points match, they would still be put in the middle. Some might argue that not all systems talk about traumatic experiences, but the requirement is that one must experience trauma to form a system; if not, then the system is not a?system.

3. Sometimes Struggle; Overall, Not Too Much

   If the system isn't failing to function, such as having regular intrusive thoughts, unaliving feelings, lapsing into vigorous flashbacks of past traumatic experiences or whatnot, then the system might be called into question. However, if a system is more harmonious than what DID/OSDD systems tend to be, the system would be in further debate. If the system isn't diagnosed and going through healing process to achieve this harmonious situation, then it pulls them to the gray zone: the middle ground between validation and invalidation.

4. Has Some Masking

   Masking is one of the most important aspects that determines whether or not a system is "real". If a system has some masking over their parts, this is what holds the system in the middle ground. Cassius has stated before why systems mask and why this is a determining factor to being a "real" or "fake" system in syscourse.

5. Symptoms Don't Really Line Up

   Symptoms such as dissociation, flashbacks and?DPDR (depresonalization and derealization) are common factors of trauma-related disorders. If a system doesn't experience these symptoms the same way as other systems of trauma normally do, then the system's validity would be pulled to question. Alters formed is also important to note, as if an alter forms without a valid trauma (yes, that is a thing. The traumatic event must be valid and justified for a split to occur.) the system would be viewed as a potential "fake" rather than "real". This discussion usually occurs on the existence of introjects in different medias.

I believe this is what both Melissa and Cassius forgot to mention in the categories, but Isaac had mentioned previously about the origins of alters/parts/headmates. This is where it comes in.

In syscourse, validation of traumatic events exists, though less common. We?believe it is due to the trauma-related nature of DID/OSDD having to go through severe trauma to get to the dissociation level; we have experienced this ourselves, and we understand. Having to go through all the pain and suffering, only to see that another person has gone through an event insignificant from your experiences would be infuriating. This is why people question and sometimes attack introjects' existence, or at least, the introjects of celebrities or characters from a show or movie.

However, doing harm to those who have these introjects and have also gone through what they have experienced as?severe trauma isn't a great thing to do. I hope that those who hold the same view are willing to discuss sensibly with those who do have these types of?introjects, so that it becomes clearer what happened and why it happened.

I hope this gives insight on system discourse and how we can change this. Thank you for reading this far, if you have any questions or something to add, please give a comment down below or DM us here.

This is Sniper, signing out.