[Delk]

> I know I'm rambling, I guess I'm saying is that even though I am skeptical of DID, or at least the mainstream depictions of DID, after making a tulpa I am a lot less skeptical of the subjective experience of DID.

I'm under the impression that the existence of DID as a subjective experience isn't that controversial.

It is something of a stereotype that someone suspected of a crime would claim DID as a defence or excuse, either in the sense that they aren't in control of themselves and that the disorder can cause an "alter" can take over akin to Mr Hyde, or simply as grounds for not remembering what happened. I suspect, though, that a qualified professional in psychiatry could call the bluff, and this entire stereotype might be more prevalent in pop culture and among laypeople than among experts in psychiatry.

Apart from pop culture and suspects feigning psychiatric disorders, the actual controversy seems to be not about the subjective reality of the disorder, but mostly about whether the symptoms and experiences of alters are caused by the trauma or the disorder itself, or whether they're iatrogenic and caused by the therapeutic and psychological theory used in treatment.

The latter might not require much more than a suitable emotional state and suggestibility of the patient. Considering that some people who are emotionally vulnerable due to trauma or prolonged stress may be particularly susceptible to suggestion, I wouldn't be surprised if the symptoms were at least partially iatrogenic.

I'm not a mental health expert, though.