I have schizotypal personality disorder. For me it feels like a collective, kind of like the borg. I say "me" or "I" when communicating externally, but all thoughts are actually communicated as "us". All entities speak with the same voice (what most people think of as their inside voice), but each one speaks differently, with a different pace/tone, and has its own personality, thoughts, and desires. There are a handful of dominant ones that sit in the captain's chair so to speak, and they all have a say in how we behave externally.
For example one of us is a pacifist, another one loves to socialize and party, one is cautious and anxious, the other very confident, and there's one that has a severe thirst for violence and blood-lust (this one we work hard to keep in check). I've literally been in fights where immediately after knocking my opponent down, I ask if they're ok and then help them back up and let them go. Then there's hundreds of transient entities that are usually clones of personalities observed elsewhere (movie characters, celebrities, or other influential people). These transient types will actually adopt the mannerisms, voice, and even accent of the personalities and display them outwardly! Makes for very weird interactions with family and friends lol.
I've yet to see anyone on reddit or elsewhere with this description of the disorder. The closest thing is DID or maybe even borderline personality disorder (which is on the same schizo spectrum), but there's no disassociation with what I have, we're all fully aware of what the other is thinking.
EDIT: added further clarifications on the differing voices
I don't know if I have a disorder or anything, but I've always felt since childhood that the actual "me" is a silent observer with little control over anything, and my body and thought processes are largely controlled by a different entity (much smarter than me) coexisting in my head. And that other entity wants me to believe it's all my decisions/actions, not theirs, and I'm in full control. It started with the realization that whenever I look at a problem, for example, a math problem, it just "clicks" with no actual effort on my part, as if someone else works hard solving it and just gives me the final answers, and all I do is take credit for it.
Maybe it's not a disorder per se, but a very peculiar kind of self-perception. If someone knows if it's a known phenomenon in psychology, I'd like to hear more about it.
I think that's could be focusing too much on the "inner voice" and assigning that the "you" label. At least for me I have a normally chatty inner voice, and usually think of that as "me", but if I step back I realize there is a lot more to "me". There's other thoughts/knowledge/processes happening that can bubble up. At least my interpretation is the voice is just the aggregator, but there's really multiple systems coming together.
If I switch tasks and do something very creative, say playing music or drawing, the inner voice goes away and I can enter a "flow" or meditative state where things just happen. It's a very different mode where it's just feelings/emotions/imagery and no language based thoughts.
Also when I get really really tired, but power through it, I have a "recursive observer" where I kind of view myself on a delay and analyse everything I do, it's kind of annoying.
I think people's psyche are less integrated than we realize. We're a bundle of emotions/desires all cohabitating. Some peoples subcomponents have good stable relationships with each other, others are chaotic and dysfunctional.
That sounds familiar - I usually say that I must be an idiot savant or something. But I don't really have the sense of an 'other' - I more think of it as a co-processor.
I had a weird experience relatively recently - I looked at a (coding) problem, and came up with an approximate (albeit buggy) solution, with no conscious involvement.
I looked at my answer, and didn't know what the hell it was meant to be doing - let alone how to debug it.
I went to sleep, and when I woke up fixed the bug with ease.
I have a relatively common occurrence that seems somewhat similar.. often when I've entered a state of flow while building something (coding) and finished my session by being distracted and then not returning to the code until the following day, it appears to me that someone else wrote that code. I have no recollection of most of it - the solutions seem creative to me, novel, like I hadn't thought of them.
Thank you for sharing. There are philosophical theories of mind that say we are all essentially like this but generally in a much less explicit way. The label “disorder” gets put on a person when the divisions become more explicit and come to the surface or when the darker aspects get control instead of being appropriately moderated by the rest.
I have been close to people who absolutely had a different consciousness take the wheel so to speak during extreme stress and entirely believe this division of mind is real.
Interesting point you bring up on the "disorder" label. I usually tell people that are newly diagnosed and freaked out about it that the label in itself is insignificant. It's only a "disorder" if it's disrupting your life in a negative way.
I have delusions, "magical thoughts", the occasional paranoia, and I prefer being alone. 95% of the time though those things don't cause any disruptions to my otherwise normal life. I have a wife, kids, and work at a FAANG without issue. I've had this "disorder" for over 20 years now and I only took anti-psychotics for maybe 3 months in the beginning. I'm on low-dose (100mg) Welbutrin to manage ADHD and minor depression, that's it. All that said, I've had a pretty successful and fairly normal life, so fixating on the "disorder" part of things is pretty much pointless. Saying I'm schizotypal is more about explaining to people that I think differently and observe my environment differently.
I've had experiences on psychedelics where my consciousness gets peeled back like an onion, with each layer being manifested by the drug as a separate voice. Things that we don't typically associate with an inner voice, like appraising some object or forming a reaction, became very explicit dialogues between influences in my mind. The loud ones were friends that I remember fondly. Some of them were comedians (LSD puts me in a silly mood). Some of them were even characters in books, and they were much quieter, but I could still feel their "grammar".
The eeriest thing is realizing why the voices are there mostly during the come up, and then get magnified to magical characters like gods and aliens as the trip progresses. I'm convinced LSD exposed aspects of my conscious processing to myself, and these voices weren't part of some creative hallucination. That all of us, psychologically, are just amalgams of influences, of which the human sort are usually the most direct, makes a lot of sense. Still, its eerie thinking that those voices are always there, just that in moments of inner cohesion they all work and therefore seem as one.
And I will say, being in that state of such explicit awareness of self was beneficial. I could say "no, don’t say that" to the voice that was saying "[morbid thing] was funny", for example. If someone thought like that all the time, I think it would be a disorder only to the degree that they wouldn't be able to communicate with others or whatever neurological overhead it incurs (maybe the brain needs some sort of central clock?).
Do "you" identify with one entity, as is often reported among tulpamancers, or do "you" stand apart from them all? When you hear one or another of your internal voices, or become aware of an entity's thoughts, is it from the perspective of another, perhaps depersonalized agent observing the rest? Do "you" have equal access to all entities or is it more accurate to think of yourself as one among them with a privileged perspective?
Thanks in advance for any insight you might be willing to provide. I hope these questions are not too invasive, your comment is of great interest to me.
Good questions and no they're not invasive, so no worries. Each day (and sometimes each interaction) the person acting as "me" is just one of the entities taking over, so effectively there's no central "me" at all if that makes sense. Today it's introverted family-man, but if we attend an event in the evening for example, the more social personality takes over and listens in on the conversations from family-man and others. Let's say the social one is currently active and sitting at the bar with friends having a great time, the family-man will say "we should text our wife and let her know we'll be home late" to which the social one may respond with "nah, we'll do it later" or "yeah that's a good idea, we'll do it now".
EDIT: to answer your last question about "equal access", we share thoughts and deliberate, but one can't exert control over the others nor forcefully take over. The active person at any given moment depends on the outside environment and what we decide is best for the situation, so it's kind of a democratic process; not sure if that can be defined as equal access or not.
Did you do training to have your parts communicate with each other? I tried imaginative meditation with the goal of for example bringing my collective to sit around a cosy campfire, become friends and ask for each other’s advice. But in my case I always had a strong sense of a single me and only recently discovered that due to stress or an overwhelming feeling of happiness one part of that whole becomes very dominant. In that regard, what you describe as an entity taking over sounds very familiar to me.
I want to get better at integrating my personas and am wondering if meditation is the only way forward. Any tips?
Meditation can help ... or it can make you psychotic. Tread carefully. Might be best to speak with a therapist on this before you experiment.
What finally brought peace is acceptance and the idea that it may even have advantages in some situations where things might be too stressful for one personality to handle, but another one can take the reins and steer us through the situation more gracefully.
The person writing here is one of the entities/personalities yes. We're all aware of each other, so that's what makes this different from DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) or at least it was different back during the initial diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder in 2001.
This indicates DID, the schizotypal stuff is orthogonal to DID, you can be both.
Most people choose and have chosen all their lives to group all their thoughts into one unitary personality. Others haven't. It's all an illusion anyway in my humble opinion. There are only chains of thoughts/feelings and we associate with those chains a feeling of "I" or "other", but the reality is it's just a meandering walk.
> In some cases, OSDD-1 parts can be highly distinct and have strong independent senses of self. What separates these individuals from those with DID is that they do not black out or lose time. They may or may not have dissociative amnesia for aspects of their trauma history, and they may occasionally experience episodes of amnesia due to extreme stress or reminders of trauma. However, they do not experience memory disruptions between parts during their normal daily life. An individual with OSDD-1b has a subjectively continuous memory; different alters do not have different versions of their history for daily life because all relevant information is accessible to all alters.
Out of curiosity, do you believe souls exist? I have asked myself if it is possible that all living beings do not technically have been "assembled" before "shipments." A person is really just a conglomerate of low level functions (souls) that assembled based on genetics and environments. The soul disperses and recycled after death. Low level programs remain, data (memory) most likely not.
That's an interesting philosophy. One of the personalities is spiritual and believes in souls yes. You should read "The Holographic Universe" if you haven't yet. It kind of dives into some of these concepts.
I'd really like the author who has no idea what is going on with Dissociative Identity Disorder to not go about mentioning DID in the same breath as schizophrenia.
They are not related in any way. Schizophrenia is explicitly neurochemical and treatable with medication. Schizophrenia is something you can be genetically predisposed to and born with.
DID and related dissociative disorders are based in trauma and are NOT something you can be born with. While trauma can cause neurological changes, they are not neurochemical in nature, and they DO NOT respond to medication. There is no medication for DID, and its incredibly irresponsible to equate these in a crackpot Jungian-style bicameral mind theory blog post. I discovered Jung's bicameral mind shortly after becoming aware of my own dissociative disorder, and while it provided a nice distraction and piece of thought, it ultimately has nothing to do with my disorder.
My alters ARE NOT VOICES, they are not hallucinations, they do not present audibly. They are me, they are my thoughts and feelings and preferences presented in different ways from different points in my life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, and we (my alter states and dissociative people) organize them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy, but they are all me. They are my competing emotional states that arose because I was forced to hold these states inside me to survive my ongoing abuse.
If the author is reading this, DO NOT bring up Dissociative Identity Disorder with schizophrenia and then go on to refer to both as "the schizophrenic". That's frankly insulting to me, people like me, and the INTENSE trauma we went through at the hands of rapists and abusers (usually parents and family members) and your entire piece is trash just for that alone.
I wish I had enough karma here to downvote your post.
Hey, many apologies, I in no way meant to conflate DID with schizophrenia. I only meant to mention DID in passing - the following sentences were only meant to apply to schizophrenia. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I'm sorry for what you went through, and if you feel my post misrepresented you.
Edit: I've modified the article a bit to hopefully make this clearer.
I'll give you a freebie edit, you can qualify it as the thoughts of an individual dissociative reader:
> Important to note, that the alters in dissociative disorders are not voices, in the classical sense of hallucinations, they do not typically present audibly. They are generally perceived as the individual's mind states (thoughts, feelings, preferences, and memories) from different points in their life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, yet the language used by those with DID organizes them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy. They are all still that individual even if the alters perceive themselves to be separate in that way.
This, I think, might back up your point more saliently than the schizophrenic angle anyway, but I admit I didn't read the article to take your point as once I saw you mention multiplicity, I speed-scrolled to the inevitable mental health/psychology section to see just how bad it was.
I moderate AskDID and used to moderate the DID subreddit before the mod team devolved into hurt people hurting hurt people, so I have some exposure to how the community perceives themselves.
You seem to really not want people to confuse DID with schizophrenia, but why? Because DID suffers are innocent victims who deserve sympathy for their trauma while schizophrenics are just born mental and don't deserve such good treatment?
You remind me of those people who get angry about type 1 and 2 diabetes. One is the sufferer's own fault and the other is innocent people who deserve to be seen as higher status.
> Because DID suffers are innocent victims who deserve sympathy for their trauma while schizophrenics are just born mental and don't deserve such good treatment?
Search your mind for why that is the first thing you go to, because it was the farthest thing from mine. You don't know what goes on in our head or anyone else's and it would behoove you not to guess at such. Much less state outright that I remind you of a dichotomy in an unrelated disorder because of this projected line of thinking.
> You seem to really not want people to confuse DID with schizophrenia, but why?
Perhaps because, as stated, DID is not neurochemical and does not respond to medication. Perhaps it would be good to differentiate between the neurochemical and the neurological disorder to prevent people who don't need strong drugs from taking them and suffering unnecessary side effects, which is a VERY common thing in populations with DID because of the misunderstandings of the differences between DID and schizophrenia.
>My alters ARE NOT VOICES, they are not hallucinations, they do not present audibly.
What if a healthy individual and a individual with dissociative disorder are just experiencing the same process from a different angle?
The author of the bestselling book "The Power of Now" speaks about some mental processes as if they were other entities (inner voice, pain body, etc) and yet he is not in a mental health unit.
You see your body as part of you but not the chair you are sitting on. The brain is certainly able to move the boundaries of what is you and what not. For example, some musicians experience the instrument they are playing as part of themselves. it's not far fetched to think that the same can also be applied to mental processes.
The perspective presented re: schizophrenia is awful too.
The author appears to be very ignorant of the last 20? 30? years of research in both schizophrenia and DID. I can tell just at a glance both by having professional experience in those areas, and by having to deal with both disorders of them every day (my life partner has both DID and schizophrenia).
Making this sort of publications without actually acquainting with the state of the art is dangerous, reckless, and frankly just plain insulting.
Freudian/Jungian psychology and its derivatives have done enough damage already, let them die.
First, sorry for being so rude in my previous comment, and what i might put here. There is a lot of misinformation out there (and in the article) and it hurts people in very tangible ways. Stigma and misinformation can very literally kill.
There is a lot of inaccurate information, and a lot of unknowns being taken as fact in this article.
For starters, almost any model of the mind based on ideas of wither Freud or Jung have been thoroughly... i won't say "disproven" because there is no proof for any of this within reach of humanity so far, but they are effectively useless. Those models don't account for a lot of things, lead to wrong outcomes in others, and overall they are a bad way to describe what's going on inside the psyche of a person.
Some characteristics of those models can be inherited into newer models, but basing anything off them will lead to routes that won't be representative of the way the mind of a person works, whether is neurotypical or not.
Having this in the middle of the article demolishes whatever credence one might hope to sustain about what it further develops.
As you point out, the "voices" that schizophrenic people might hear are not a simple auditory hallucination; though just saying it's reasonable to say they are actual selves is taking an idea in a very simplistic way. Here is where the issue begins, a person not versed whatsoever in psychology reads the article and believes as gospel what is said here in a very simplified way, the nuance is lost in the middle.
Whether the voices of a person with schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder, or schizoaffective disorder might actually be discriminated as having the same qualities as a disembodied being, is dependent on the specifics on the case, how is it treated, and how other comorbidities might interact with it. Things regarding mental illnesses are extremely messy and extremely hard to grasp even for trained professionals with specific experience in the area (years to find a psychiatrist qualified enough to treat my partner. years!).
The article contains a lot more bad sources, inaccurate understanding of the self and the inner dialogue (that not even everyone has) and has a haphazard mixture between pop-psych and neuroscience that conflates things that are pertinent to a certain domain as generalizable or universal.
I'm sorry but this is not good and it's not as simple as correcting a thing or two about schizophrenia, because when i read the whole thing it screams "i don't really know what i'm talking about but i will throw a bunch of sources and topics and pretend i do". Maybe you're knowledgeable about this stuff and just the process of simplifying things for the article butchered everything, or maybe you don't really have much idea about what you're writing. In any case if you want i can give you some books/papers/sources, or chat about the subject, feel free to contact me.
I appreciate the apology! Not strictly necessary though, it's the internet after all :) I also appreciate the detailed response.
I'm not sure how much of your criticism to chalk up to disagreement (totally valid!) versus me being factually wrong. E.g. while Jung and Freud have fallen out of favor with mainstream psychology, I and many others find their ideas both intellectually and practically useful. Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.
> The article contains a lot more bad sources
Any specific sources I should have avoided? I went through all the links, and it's mainly Wikipedia, Nature, The Atlantic, NYT, etc, aside from one article by Tanya Luhrmann (who I think is brilliant) in Wilson Quarterly (which I know nothing about).
> Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.
The same can be said for supernatural belief systems like Christianity: oftentimes people find them useful or helpful.
That doesn't make them true or accurate or related in any way to reality.
Your article has an authoritative tone on a scientific topic. You should fix that, given that modern science has rejected the cited models as without merit.
You are welcome to constrain your thinking to the artificial, speculative Overton Window laid down by The Science (which is based on hypotheses in the Motte version), but some of us choose to do otherwise, thanks.
A claim above is "they are effectively useless" - this is a claim of fact, but science does not know the facts about such matters.
> DID and related dissociative disorders are based in trauma and are NOT something you can be born with. While trauma can cause neurological changes, they are not neurochemical in nature
2nd paragraph of the wikipedia article says that although mostly caused by trauma, "Genetic and biological factors are also believed to play a role."
So i'm not sure you can claim that there is for sure no neurochemical basis. Seems like we don't understand it well enough to make that claim.
what is truly flabbergasting is the use and application of trauma induction as a technique by shadowy persons within governments and other "for the science" and later on "for the [your cause of choice], we must use these techniques, lest the rivals use them too and we lose".
traumatized people passing on their traumas. some very clever powerful persons using traumatized people like they use other tools and instruments.
IDK what you mean by people who have had no trauma. This is the stupidest take on DID and trauma I see (that there are people without trauma), and I see it everywhere. Do you consider children growing up in a school system where they are taught to fear gunmen coming in and killing them traumatic? I do, and we have millions of kids in the US school system going through that trauma even if everything else in their life is perfect (it's not, life under the capitalist system is traumatic in ways most can't begin to grapple with)
Life is full of things that an adult won't find traumatic but a child who doesn't know what it is or how to handle it will, and THEN the core feature of the disorder is amnesia.
I will say it again. THE CORE FEATURE OF DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER IS AMNESIA FOR TRAUMA. And yet I still get chodes coming around asking me to explain why there are systems "without trauma".
A broken arm at 8 years old is traumatic just as a missed meal a the right age, say 2yo, is traumatic. Small enough to be forgotten in amnesia, but still significant enough early on for it to have affected the child. By the time you're an adult, neither are generally considered "traumatic" because we've experienced or learned of MUCH worse things. Trauma Olympics sucks and we should stop doing it.
Having your caretakers not be responsive due to money stress is trauma to a young, developing child. Later they have already dissociated and their parents got their finances together, so they were attentive and the child forgot. Did the trauma not happen?
Please don't pretend like everyone on earth makes it to adulthood without some form of trauma. It's incredibly ignorant of reality.
If (by your definition) everyone has trauma, how can you say trauma causes anything? You can't really establish cause and effect for something that literally everyone has.
Genetic and biological factors (from the 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia page, as you so helpfully pointed out above) play a role in the body's response to trauma.
Everyone has trauma, not everyone has DID from it, and that's where those factors come into play. Just as not everyone has red hair or the genetics for schizophrenia.
In the absence of trauma one can still be schizophrenic due to neurochemistry. DID does not form in the absence of trauma, but we cannot prove that because we cannot purge trauma from life.
Eh maybe its because I've spent a lot of time studying neuroscience and psychology, but I think the jump from the split brain phenomena due to cutting the corpus callosum to having multiple internal 'people' is kind of a large jump. It also seems obvious to me that parts of your brain are communicating, and if you cut a large connection, then they will need time to form new connections and ways of perceiving the world.
And of course we all contain many layers in terms of personality etc. I also would be careful at taking Freuds words too closely -- a lot of his works were not backed explicitly by science, and many psychologists don't support his ideas.
But of course maybe I'm just engrained with traditional thinking -- I can suggest listening to Jeff Hawkin's podcast on Lex Fridman. He has some interesting novel ideas on neuroscience that pushed me to think a bit more abstractly.
What I think is demonstrated is that you can cut a conscious brain in half in the right way to result in two separate consciousness entities.
In the same way that you could cut a small piece of a person’s brain out and the larger remaining piece is still conscious, it would follow that there is no single point in the brain where you could divide it in half and say this half has the consciousness the other one does not. Consciousness must then be distributed amongst a certain portion of brain matter and can be cut and still exist separately in both cut pieces.
What if your dominant personality ate all it's siblings and that's why you only hear one voice?
Anyway, there are multiple centers in your brain that process different sensations and conditions - you perceive hunger, thirst, anger, temperature etc.
Think about a "computer" like a desktop or laptop. How many computers are in the computer? There are many chips that run programs, but are not considered "the CPU".
What if your hunger perceiver was conscious, but your .... main consciousness didn't let it talk.
It could be an interesting science fiction story at least.
I think those are separate phenomena. There are plenty of essentially input filters in your brain which are very far from consciousness. For example point and edge detection in vision can be exactly mapped to individual neurons and there wouldn’t be any consciousness involved in that process.
The brain seems to be organized into layers. The bottom layers are simple things which turn raw input into a higher more useful abstraction like transforming visual signals into “this is a line”. Abstractions get piled together in the lower levels which are generally well understood and the very top levels being consciousness which isn’t understood at all. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if consciousness had many components with many locations.
If I had to place a bet right now on who the future will judge was the Darwin of our time, I would bet on Marvin Minsky.
This Split-Brain post asks "What if I’m not the only person in my head?". IMO this may be the most fascinating question to work on today.
Minsky answered it IMO conclusively in his Society of Mind (1986), just as Darwin answered the question "Where do species come from?". There is no "you", but a collection of agents/resources inside your brain. The details are still being discovered by the great work of folks like Hawkins, but Minsky's theory seems like a bullseye.
Split-brain is on the right track, but the N is a lot higher.
There is a concept in Tibetan thought that there can be independent "power centers" (for lack of a better term) in the mind. They might warp the personality of the "host". They might sometimes grow out of control.
This is my superficial understanding anyways.
And now that I think of it, it sounds a bit like Videodrome.
Studies of split brain patients play a good part in illustrating how little our consciousness is in control in "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman, a book I highly recommend.
the author of this blog is mentioned the mystic aspects of all major religions except Islam; was it done out of ignorance or intentional neglect? It's difficult to guess. But it surely does point out an important issue when an "article" is presented:
how do we know what is withheld, what is presented incorrectly? whether intentionally or not, it surely does point out the blind spot of unknown unknowns--and if readers know less than writers, then readers will never be able to fathom what was withheld.
For instance, he mentioned Gurdjieff but Ibn Arabi was the giant of Mysticism--and continues to remains so to this day.
Thank you for your response. The Islamic Sufi tradition is simply an advanced level of traditional practice of Islam--a superbly intelligent interpretation that never deviates from the core principles; both Arabs and Persians have contributions in this sphere.
Sheikh Farid-uddin Attar, resident of Neshapour (ancient Persia), mentions in one of his works (I translate, but it will not be perfect):
"Don't let the self (your soul) become familiarized with the Demons--
for once you do, you become one yourself."
In the context of his poem, the Demons refer to the proteges of Satan who cause us to commit sin--the ugly side of the Human being. In other words, if you do something ugly, you will still have your good self, but also now develop a bad self; the more bad you do, the more varieties of bad selves you will develop.
Philosophic psychiatry (that blends religion with psychology, as suggested by Maslow) supports this view as well: recent (2011) paper on the New Unconscious confirms that humans are objectively good: our good self is always there. But when we deviate from this objective goodness, (to the degree that we deviate) we slowly face dissociation--multiple selves emerge as an after-effect.
Elsewhere Hakim Nezami, resident of Ganja (now located in Azerbaijan), writes:
"O, Thou, from Whom the Whole Existence has come about!"
"The weak soil, become able from Thy Mercy!"
While on the surface it may refer to how soil produces food per decree of the Almighty, it also refers to human beings (as we were made from soil originally); the reference to becoming able is in contrast to being weak--when committing sin and doing wrong: the bad self--while becoming able implies no longer being weak: developing the good self.
Saying there could be another one “person” viewing inside you is as absurd as 1 billion other inside you. As far as you are concerned you will never find out(disprove) and so it won’t matter if it’s actually true or not. Is also similar to saying there are ghosts all around us, can you disprove it? No. Do most people care? No.
For example one of us is a pacifist, another one loves to socialize and party, one is cautious and anxious, the other very confident, and there's one that has a severe thirst for violence and blood-lust (this one we work hard to keep in check). I've literally been in fights where immediately after knocking my opponent down, I ask if they're ok and then help them back up and let them go. Then there's hundreds of transient entities that are usually clones of personalities observed elsewhere (movie characters, celebrities, or other influential people). These transient types will actually adopt the mannerisms, voice, and even accent of the personalities and display them outwardly! Makes for very weird interactions with family and friends lol.
I've yet to see anyone on reddit or elsewhere with this description of the disorder. The closest thing is DID or maybe even borderline personality disorder (which is on the same schizo spectrum), but there's no disassociation with what I have, we're all fully aware of what the other is thinking.
EDIT: added further clarifications on the differing voices