Plurality and 'Genius'

Apparently, it is common amongst certain trauma-split plural groups to claim that, because of observations of a limited population made by psychiatrists, multiples are inherently more intelligent than singlets, and their system-members were created because they were bright enough to come up with a creative coping-mechanism. I find it amusing that a lot of groups who make this claim seem to have an awful command of English  and logic.

    Firstly, not every multiple system is born of trauma. The one I'm in isn't. There has always been more than one person here -- people arrived later, but we weren't born of trauma. In fact, when we were being brought up, people noticed that we conducted ourselves as separate entities. I'm not saying that there aren't trauma-based groups. They do exist. I just think that it's wrong to say that all groups are borne of trauma, because that idea assumes that the brain can't ever start off with more than one consciousness. Scientists just don't know enough about the brain -- or consciousness -- to determine whether there absolutely must be one consciousness to be 'normal'. Richard went into this in a comment he left to someone in a Livejournal community and I'm going to paste what he said, as an excerpt.

    Being a natural multiple system does not mean that they are necessarily of trauma origin. Assuming that most multiple systems must have originated from trauma appears to be a form of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy; that is, you are equating correlation with cause. This is not to say that trauma-based systems do not exist, or that the experience of any sort of multiple system is inherently 'less valid' than the other. That also applies to the idea that 'all multiplicity is dissociative' -- whilst it is true that there are dissociative systems, there are other systems that do not dissociate. We are not a dissociative system: although we may switch fronters when something is difficult, it is more analogous to despatching an appropriate person to perform a task at work*, rather than a host's 'escaping the world'.

    Implying that most systems were created through splitting also indicates that it is always the case that the brain harbours a single consciousness at birth. There is not enough known scientifically about the nature of consciousness -- or personality -- to make such a judgement objectively. The idea that there absolutely must be one consciousness per body is a Western cultural trope, rather than an immutable fact that is true for all cultures and all periods of history. I think that there are far too many sorts of brains and cognition types for multiple autonomous conscious entities not to arise within a single brain.  

    * Caveant lectores: None of our fronters are there to 'perform certain tasks': I used that analogy to explain why we may change fronters during difficult times.


    Secondly, really, are all plural systems inherently more intelligent? Has there ever been a scientific test of all kinds of multiples showing this, or is this something that came from anecdotal evidence from therapists who saw mostly educated, white, middle- and upper-class women who could afford that kind of therapy? I think that the evidence is already skewed. Plural groups may also look 'more intelligent' because many people are contributing their individual talents for the good of the system, and because everyone has different abilities, it may make the group seem more intelligent collectively.

It doesn't make sense to make a blanket pronouncement that all multiples are more intelligent than singlets. I'm not saying that there are not systems that happen to have members in it that are more intelligent than average, or bodies that have brains that think more quickly than most people's brains. I'm not even saying that some groups don't have people in their groups who were created because their creator was of above-average intelligence and creativity. That kind of thing happens. It's just silly to say that that's the case for all plurals, especially when there isn't any conclusive evidence for that.