Fraser's “Dissociative Table Technique” Revisited, Revised: A Strategy for Working with Ego States in Dissociative Disorders and Ego-State Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenge in the management of a number of the dissociative disorders–which is not present in any other psychiatric or physical disorder–is the need to manage a person who has a dissociative plurality of self identities. Each self identity or ego state believes in its own separate existence, and that it can relate to the outside world without any need of the other co-existing ego states. The primary treatment of dissociative disorders is psychotherapy (and psychopharmacology when Axis I comorbid disorders cause functional impairment), much like the psychotherapy of other disorders. However, in treating dissociative disorders, it is often necessary for the therapist to interact with the various ego states. To ignore the clients' subjective reality of such ego states often leads to therapeutic failure, a fruitless focus solely on the comorbid conditions, termination of therapy, or a flight to another therapist. Effective therapy most often results from the recognition and acceptance of the subjective reality of the client's separate ego states and the ability of the therapist to lead the client towards a dissolution of the amnestic barriers and disharmony of these ego states. For many clients, however, the switching of ego states is chaotic and uncontrolled. The Dissociative Table Technique offers a technique to allow clients to recognize internal ego states, and to structure and control switching and internal communication. It is an adjunctive strategy to the psychotherapy and has proven successful in establishing internal cooperation and integration of the various ego states. Drawing on principles from hypnosis, gestalt therapy and clinical experience, the strategies of the Dissociative Table Technique allow the therapist to teach the dissociated person to facilitate interaction of ego states, and to integrate and eventually join or fuse the dissociated ego states into a consistent sense of self brought about by the cooperation and coawareness of all ego states who learn to function as a unit. This is an expanded and updated version of the original publication of this technique (Fraser, 1991).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".