So here's the root of the author's skepticism - since obviously every single body must be home to only a single person because the rest of the world assumes it to be so. Anyone who has more than one person, obviously must be a danger because any of these people can, and will, completely disregard the rules, because the contracts are only binding to one person. Indeed, some people in multiple systems will choose to disregard the law, their debts, and anything else they can. However, bodies with only a single person are just as likely to do the same. In a functioning, healthy multiple group each individual is aware that contracts on the body bind every individual in it, and are willing to abide by that. It seems to be that the author is of the opinion that anyone who 'claims or appears' to be multiple is only doing so to dodge their responsibilities. This is simply not so.

The next passage cinches it.

'Dissociation of the personality is not only bizarre but also extremely rare - so rare, indeed, that one has to take seriously the possibility that it may be a social and psychiatric artifact. I.e. that it can only occur if prevailing views on the nature of personality make it conceivable that two personalizes can occupy the same bodily frame, and the potential case of split or multiple personality encounters a psychiatrist who believes in, or is already interested in, dissociation of the personality.'

By the author's use of elaboration, it's safe to assume that he is of the belief that multiples are only in existence because therapists believe them to be - and only so rare because most therapists don't believe them. This is also not the case - there are multiple systems who became aware of themselves before seeing a therapist, and a few who even are used to being multiples from birth.

The rest of the article continues pretty much in the same key. Summarily it states that most cases of multiplicity existed from between 1840 and 1910, after demonical possession, and before psychoanalytical ideas had impact. It explains that during this time, Victorian conventions stopped patients and doctors from talking about intimate physical details - details which very well could have explained massive changes in mental feeling, and established continuity of bodily feeling. It continues that personality and identity could not have changed if patient and physician believed that the ground of being is located in the body.

It explains that also many patients will produce symptoms to please their physicians - stating that the greatest majority of multiple personality cases are reported by male physicians treating younger females. It states the case of Sally Beuchamp - who begged her physician, Dr. Prince to hypnotize her. Three other personalities emerged while Dr. Prince was treating Sally, two while she was under hypnosis. Dr. Prince had already published papers on double personality and was known to be interested in the subject. The author draws the conclusion that Sally was seeking to please Dr. Prince, and that the pair were more attached to each other than was appropriate in turn of the century New England.

Also, it details the works of Pierre Janet - stating that most of his work was with women - notably Lucie Leonie and Rose. Rose regularly produced new or sub-personalities while under hypnosis. Janet apparently distinguished clearly between roles filled by hypnotic subjects to please hypnotists, and new unknown personalities. It is assumed that what Janet was describing as multiple personalities would contemporarily be called revivals of repressed memories. Janet believed that each personality that emerged was a step closer to the 'real' person than the original presented personality - and that it was therapeutically helpful to name each emerging personality.

Both doctors believed that the self is an entity achieved by integration of 'simultaneous psychological existences' - therefore multiple personalities were caused by failures in integration. Contemporary doctors believe the opposite - that the self is a 'pristine unity', but uses defense mechanisms - notably repression. This discredits most of the work that nineteenth-century physicians did on the subject, by reclassifying the work they did into new terms.

Stating that the change must have been due to the discoveries of Freud, including his more sexual view of human nature, the article also informs that after 1910 there was a wave of reaction against the concept of multiple personality. This reaction was mostly anti-patient, believing that the doctors had been duped by reactions they had 'involuntarily shaped'. However, if Freud's theory of repression explains all multiplicity - then why are memories that are non-traumatic often 'repressed'? Different people in each system may hold separate memories - and each memory is often of very mundane, non traumatic things. However, because these memories are not available to all people in the system, they are regarded to be 'repressed'. If this is a defense mechanism, what is it defending the person from? Quite simply, multiplicity cannot be explained entirely by repression - as all multiples are not trauma-based cases.

Next, the article states that 'contemporary textbooks of psychiatry are notably cautious and uncertain in their approach to dissociation of the personality'. It states that one notable textbook stresses the transparency of this condition to everyone but the patient - and the rarity of it. It also notes that doctors and the public have become more sophisticated. As the article draws to a close, it drops this bombshell;

'Hysterical dissociation states, including dissociation of the personality, seem indeed to have more to do with the psychology of deception and self-deception than with any innate or acquired incapacity for integration.'