It seems that there's a correlation between how a system's internal relationships work and how they get along with people outside their body (as a generalization). How they deal with people in general seems to hold true whether the "people in general" are internal or are external.
For example: Someone who is distrustful will be distrustful whether the "people" are in the system or outside of it.
Someone who is unable to connect with others on an emotional level will be unable to do so whether they are internal or external.
Someone who believes that all people are precious and worthy of individual recognition will generally recognize people as worthy individuals whether they are headmates or co-workers.
This is a generalization of course, however so far many of the multiples this theory has been passed by have agreed that it does, indeed, seem to hold true for them. Thus it seems that each multiple mirrors outside to inside, or inside to outside.
This theory holds in psychology, because there are theories that, for example, the Superego (Freud's theory) is an internalization of the mores and ethics of other people. There are other theories of more elaborate internalization of external people, personalities, mores, ethics, etc.
It is also possible that the internal relationships dictate how the system, or residents, relates to or acts toward external people.
- I have a high level of trust of people in general. I am sociable even if I prefer to be introverted. I can(!) maintain relationships with friends and family outside my body, etc. and when I do I prefer to keep to a stable group of people who intimately know me and my business, etc. This is reflected inside my head. It's an intentional family. I maintain my inner relationships with the additional confidence that literally being inside each other's heads affords us -- we *know* what each other is thinking, so our inclination to trust is reinforced. -- XES
- We tend to be more individualistic in how we see people. As a rule, I distrust people until they give me a reason to trust them; another of the Shards, for example T-D-, is more inclined to give people the benefit of a doubt before deciding if someone is untrustworthy. The majority of us relate well to people outside of the Shards, though different Shards manifest behind the mask depending on exactly whom is being spoken to. This causes a few problems with interaction (such as not having shared certain memories leading to the 'absent-minded professort effect - T-D- doesn't necessarily know someone that "I" do, and doesn't appreciate having to figure out who this strange person is, let alone having to figure out how far this person can be trusted). --B-, for the Shards
Traits noted to be mirrored internally & externally:
- negotiation - a preference for negotiation can be seen in
- communication ability/willingness
- autonomy - How comfortable someone is with working alone or how much someone tries to work with groups
- boundaries - What will/will not be done with others, what is/is not permissible in interaction (such as physical contact or eye contact), what will/will not be discussed with people.
- pessimism - extreme amounts of pessimism can affect the willingness to try new solutions to solve internal or external problems because of a lack of motivation (if nothing will work anyway, why try?) Also, willingness to even "try" to solve problems which arise.
- appreciation of others
- take others for granted -- I see this as an utter lack of relating to other people as being real. Other's feelings, their lives, their energies, lack some type of concrete reality for the multiple in question. The multiples can objectively observe that other people exist, but the fact that they are real and have their own pain and suffering does not actually enter the reality of the person taking for granted....This may overlap with the denial of other people in one's head that both these multiple exhibit -- the lack internal communication and cohesion, have a hard time with their internal reality...despite all objective evidence that they are actually multiple...neither can get the idea of the other people inside or outside the body being REAL through, can't believe totally that they think, feel, have rights, have their own perceptions, their own reality.
- people are an extension of oneself - sometimes there's someone in a multiple system who decides, without agreement from others in the system, to become "functionally multiaspected" rather than multiple --or so they have convinced themselves. This will also reflect their approach to the outside world....people are an extension of themself on some level, outside people are not truly separated from them, others serve to further their aims, they can use them to manipulate their reality and achieve their goals without having to empathize with the outsider, give them respect, acknowledge their rights or autonomy....etc. The main difference here is that someone who is aspected is really one person -- their "aspects" do not identify as or wish to be recognized as separate selves. They are simply one person with many strong roles/masks/perspectives.