Welcome budding sprouts, this is Melissa of the Lark System.?

Drafting upon this little essay, I saw the little theory of the Validation Spectrum in syscourse, and decide to take upon the role of writing the side of which mass validation is permitted.

But first, let's talk about what Validation Spectrum is, shall we?

We have created this little spectrum?that comes with associating the main five points Isaac has stated in the previous written work. I am sure that we are not the first ones that came up with this insignificant observation-turned-theory, but I believe it would be much better for us to openly discuss these observations. Observations can be taxing to understand, hence we created this spectrum.

(Now that I think about it, it doesn't seem like a theory... It's more of a build-up of observations and turning it into a hypothesis, and with evidence supporting it heavily, it becomes a model of thinking. I will refer to this as a model then.)

Like any other spectrum,?we have two different sides that are polar opposite to each other. Visible Light Spectrum goes from long wavelengths to short wavelengths, while Validation Spectrum goes from validation to invalidation. (We wonder, what system is considered valid and what is considered invalid? That's when it came up.)

For simplifying and an easier understanding, I will be presenting this diagram below.

As time goes, we will be categorising in syscourse terms, what makes a system valid and what makes a system invalid, as well as try and provide explanations for it. In the end, we will summarise and conclude with what the Validation Spectrum gives and what use it has.

Alright, now to the topic of what makes a system valid in syscourse.

1. Being Diagnosed

   We are starting with the most obvious aspect of all:?being diagnosed makes a system valid. A medical professional, or several medical professionals, diagnose a system as DID/OSDD, meaning their system is typically valid. Though there will still be several suspicious critics coming in with "the diagnosis is fake" claims, most doubts would be eliminated, or at least 95% of people would have believed them.

2. Having Trauma or Traumatic Events/Experiences

   Trauma becomes an indicator of whether or not a system is valid. Though it is less significant of a factor than a diagnosis, traumatic events serves as a great factor to being validated for a DID/OSDD system. As a lot of literature had suggested, DID/OSDD are more often tied to repeated traumatic events since childhood, and if one remembers they do have trauma, then that puts you on to the validation list.

3. Having?a lot of Daily Struggles as a System (Not Always Fun)

   Being able to have a laugh and have fun all the time is not something a system should have. If one struggles all the time, has no joy and is struggling massively, one has the chances of being validated as a DID/OSDD system. Sure, occasional happiness is okay, but one must have massive struggles and?misery as a DID/OSDD system.

4. Must Mask (Not Distinct and Unique on the Outside)

   To be validated as a system in system discourse, one must have hidden parts/alters that act almost identical as the host. Though there might have been small and insignificant details that could distinguish alters apart, but everything almost seems exactly the same. This would be a DID/OSDD system in real life.

5. Symptoms Must Match (Dissociation, Switching etc.)

   Matching symptoms of dissociation and switching makes you in suspicion of a valid DID/OSDD system. There are other things, such as amnesia, comorbidity/misdiagnosis of BPD, or the mentioning that one has been diagnosed with PTSD or C-PTSD, that could be a token of validation in the discussion of syscourse. Having the medical book of?symptoms related to traumatic disorders gives an indication of validity in a DID/OSDD system.

The five points above are what would be considered "extremely valid" in a syscourse discussion. Keep in mind that if one discribes their symptoms too similar to the book, then there is a chance that the validity value of the account would be dropped, pushing the account to a more invalid side of things.

Some of you now may be wondering, "Isn't that just a typical DID/OSDD?system?"

Yes! You've noticed it! Along with that point, a lot of this discussion is based upon DID/OSDD, as one of the most popular models of Dissociative Disorders is the Structural Dissociation Model (Steele, van der Hart, Nijenhuis, 2004). The model suggests that a system's formation is tied to the repeated traumatic experiences a child faced before their personality has been fulling integrated. This, in turn, blocks out trauma by discontinuing integration of the personality, forming individual alters/parts.

The model?is (sort of) what system discourse is based on: whether or not things check out with this model and the medical criteria would determine if one's system is valid or not. If valid, one can call themselves a system; if not, one isn't a system and cannot call themselves a system.

This would be what a typical valid system in system discourse is. If you think we have missed anything, feel free to comment down below or DM us. We would make necessary changes to the Validation Spectrum model.

I believe Isaac and Sniper forgot to mention this, but we can understand some Chinese, so as long as the comments are not that complicated, we should be able to understand and reply accordingly.

This is Melissa, signing out.