Science on Endogenic Systems

Endogenic systems, according to the name, should refer to all systems that formed due to internal causes (that’s what the prefix “endo” means), but in the community this term is often used to describe all systems that formed for reasons other than trauma. This topic is closely related to the topic of non-disordered systems, meaning those whose plurality does not cause suffering or difficulties in functioning and who do not require treatment. But these two terms are not synonymous and a traumagenic system may be non-disordered, for example after achieving functional multiplicity and no longer meeting the diagnostic criteria for a complex dissociative disorder, and some endogenic systems may be disordered.

The existence of endogenic systems causes a lot of controversy and hostility in the system community. But in scientific circles the situation looks completely different — I have not yet encountered people trying to argue that only trauma can lead to the emergence of plurality, although I have many times encountered opposition to the idea that we are persons (and I have not noticed any controversy around that among many sysmedicalists). If you are looking for articles using terminology like “endogenic” or “traumagenic”, you likely won't find them, because these are terms used by the community, but contrary to what some people believe, there is quite a lot of research on natural plurality. For now, summing up at least the most important ones is still ahead of me (I wanted to at least put some basics here so they can already clarify things a bit until I find time to write more), but you can find them on scientific publication list with the “non-disordered plurality” filter selected.

Disorder classifications

In DSM-5, the American classification of disorders, the diagnostic criteria for dissociative identity disorder include criterion C, which excludes from the diagnosis all systems that do not experience distress or significant problems in everyday functioning due to the presence of alters and amnesia, and criterion D, which also excludes systems whose plurality is normative for a given culture.^[1] ICD-11 also requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in important areas of life or that maintaining adequate functioning requires substantial additional effort.^[2] If that is not enough, in the section “Boundary with Normality” we read: “The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder should not be assigned in these cases.” Functional impairment is also required in the case of OSDD-1^[3] and pDID.^[4] Apart from that, neither classification requires the presence of trauma to diagnose these disorders, nor sets a strict age limit at which they can develop (which is outside of the scope of this article, but it is also a common misconception that is worth correcting).

Theory of structural dissociation

There is absolutely nothing about endogenic plurality in the theory of structural dissociation. So why is it included in this article at all? If you were unfortunate enough to encounter the more toxic part of the system community, you probably know that this fact is often used as an argument that systems can only form through trauma. The absence of discussion of non-disordered plurality in the theory has not gone unnoticed in the scientific community as well, and by some people it has not been received very favorably. Two of the authors of the theory, Nijenhuis and van der Hart, addressed this topic in a paper in which they attempt to defend their definition of dissociation against (considerable) criticism. They acknowledge that while they define dissociation exclusively as a “division of personality” in the context of trauma, they are aware that some definitions of dissociation also include other contexts, such as mediumship and hypnosis, and that there is evidence that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality.^[5] You can find the full quote in my post “Theory of Structural Dissociation Doesn't Support Endophobia”.

But what if the theory of structural dissociation actually contradicted the possibility of non-traumagenic plurality? If you accepted that fact uncritically, then to remain intellectually honest you would also have to accept just as uncritically that we are only parts of a single personality, which this theory states very explicitly. And as I mentioned, I have encountered many endophobic systems that, despite this, consider themselves to be multiple persons inhabiting one body. Additionally, as I wrote in “The Theory of Structural Dissociation — an Absolute Truth?” (not yet translated to English), in psychology the word “theory” is used much more loosely than in the field of natural science. The theory of structural dissociation is not a beyond all doubt experimentally confirmed model that reflects our best understanding of reality, like for example the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity. Many people do not realize that apart from this one there are numerous other, sometimes contradictory models of dissociative identity disorder, for example the four factor theory of etiology or the theory of functional dissociation. And some of them, for example the internal family systems theory, explicitly state the existence of non-disordered plurality.

References

1. ↑ Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 5th edition, American Psychiatric Association, 2022, as cited in: DID in the DSM-5, Katherine Reuben
2. ↑ Dissociative identity disorder | ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, World Health Organisation, 2018
3. ↑ Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 5th edition, American Psychiatric Association, 2013, as cited in: Other Specified Dissociative Disorder and DDNOS, traumadissociation.com
4. ↑ Partial Dissociative identity disorder | ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, World Health Organisation, 2018
5. ↑ Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with Previous Formulations, dr Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis i dr Onno van der Hart, Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 2011

Created: 13.12.2025
Translated: 29.04.2026

Disclaimer: to speed up the process and allow us to provide you with more resources, this article was translated with the help of ChatGPT. We carefully reviewed and redacted the whole text before publishing.