• Site Maintenance in progress; pardon our dust!

Psychological Kin - How Does It Work For You?

ElleWulf

New member
I haven’t met any other psychological alterhumans who have given a known reason for their identity, like how they think it came to be. For those of you out there, what components come into play with your psychological kintype? How do YOU think it works?

 
F

Faze

Unverified
I believe my own otherkinity came about by unconsciously latching onto and internalizing non-human beings to survive to the point that what I internalized became integral to my identity. No idea how that works with me being a deinonychus or Cybertronian because I don't remember much of my childhood at all prior to maybe age 9 (just bits and pieces) so that is just my base idea.

 

Naia

*goes fast*
Staff member
Administrator
I believe a large part of my therianthropy is the result of abnormal psychology. I see myself as "somehow wolf" and "somehow fox", without really 100% understanding the mental processes that cause this association. There is a (smaller) spiritual component to my identification as well, but now a days I see it as largely psychological. My mind associates "wolf" or "fox" with my concept of self, almost arbitrarily, and cannot stop doing so even if I stop and rationalize things out. I recognize this to be abnormal psychology, but I do NOT recognize it as any form of mental illness or something that needs to be changed, as it causes zero harm in everyday life.

I say that my spiritual component is smaller, because while I believe my spiritual self to be wolf, I'm not necessarily sure it would be such a large part of my identity today without the psychological component being in play.

 

ElleWulf

New member
I believe my own otherkinity came about by unconsciously latching onto and internalizing non-human beings...
Same with me. I posted about my full process in my introductions post, but it definitely was a form of minor imprinting on my end due to my childhood.

 I recognize this to be abnormal psychology, but I do NOT recognize it as any form of mental illness or something that needs to be changed, as it causes zero harm in everyday life.
I agree completely. I definitely suspect being autistic for myself comes into play - which is not a mental illness - but either way my identity had caused me no harm or internal damage.

 

Red-in-Tooth

Machairodont Felid
VIP
An important thing to understand and appreciate in deviant psychology is that the individual should be functioning, regardless of their condition. A person who is functioning is not meaningfully disabled by their condition and can act regularly and purposefully in greater society; they can go about their lives, experience no significant disorder or distress by their condition, and generally are able to live with a quality of life comparable to most others. This is an important thing to bear in mind when approaching the therian concept and is the general truth when dealing with anything at all in the psychological realm.

So in the context of otherness, what exactly is it and what does it stem from? As controversial as this is to say in some places, it has all the hallmarks of identity disorders, a dysphoria, and or a personality disorder. The difference being it is not all that common a diagnosis itself as it tends to not be the root problem of a disorder and that it tends to manifest consequently of something else. Between those two factors, I suspect that is why it is never recognized as its own thing - and I apply this observation to all forms of the aforementioned otherness that makes up the concept of otherkin as a whole, no one specific variety singled out. The issue being with it that it is not pointed to being the core and crux of the matter; an individual regularly does not suffer because they are this thing, rather that they suffer because of what makes it manifest in the first place, a symptom and not a cause.

It arises in no small way from alienation and ostracization by peers and above from a young age. I also hypothesize on the matter that it comes from some other underlying, even undiagnosed condition that makes the individual off or odd, and that it also offers circumstances for association with other things as an out. E.g. "If I do not feel connection to other people and they do not feel connected to me and they are hostile to me, ergo I am not a person. Because I believe I am most similar to X, or see myself in X, then I am X because X is most similar to me." This process is present from very early on and its potential exists in various individuals who do not manifest it until exposed to trauma. At a young age, even isolation and rejection by peers and or adults, and reaching out to primitive fantasy, is traumatic because the simplicity of a developing child makes them highly prone to any sort of influence. I do not make a distinction here between these two very different things because it appears consistent that the outcome is the same; disassociation of some variety.

Animals are a historical, even prehistoric at that, fixture in the lives of humans. They are the most easy thing to sympathize with and bond to, namely in the case of mammals, and well known, iconic mammals as the lion or wolf and so on. This begins the process of radiating out in degrees of separation, but I would be amiss if I negated symbols. A dragon, as we know them in this world, does not exist. Neither can we prove the existence of faeries, angels, demons, or any purely extraordinary supernatural beings, but they consistently arise in the collective unconscious - the general unconscious all humans share by evolutionary development, not some sort of psychic link, understand this - and are known and understood without need for others having to see or experience them. They are universal concepts that only change in shape and shade when one views them through individual lens. Thus like animals, they are readily existent and present templates people are drawn to that display something with which they are familiar to. As we travel further out in this radiation, these concentric rings, we begin moving into increasingly esoteric territory, where we experience modern myth. This is the place of the heroes, the demigods, the exceptional people, the villains, and so on; this is where I suspect that because these are all shades of the aforementioned symbols, this is why people are drawn to them but choose those which are most familiar and like them, consciously or unconsciously just as with anything else mentioned before or here after. This is the realm of characters and cliche as it may sound, this is quite possibly the realm and source of where people get the idea that they are the Buddha or Jesus Christ or a Saint, or beat with me, a character of some mythos - most often a person of importance or significance. The further we step back from this, the more we observe the significance becomes reduced, but we can also denote the more human and grounded they become. We have all but transitioned into the realm of mere people and after we pass that place - because I believe it needs no special description to attribute people who believe themselves to be reincarnated or similar - we move out into the further most associations, those of that which are far removed from human. This is where abstracts like machines or concepts and similar exist, they are comprehensible but are exceptionally far removed and in many ways are man-made conceptually or described by man as we know them. 

So what does all this mean? It means we see a gradual, consistent, simple progression of explanatory outcome which mirrors this hypothetical model and we see a reason for it to manifest at all. We also have a long-standing history to look back to and make comparisons as well as observations from and these match very well with the incidents over time. This leads me to believe what I described above about how I conclude the psychological aspect of otherness exists. Where it becomes murky is where one tries to discern how people came to certain conclusions without prior knowledge. Using myself as a good example for this, I have always had a strong affiliation and affinity for cats, I have always been more partial to felids than people since I was born. This is not extraordinary or unusual, rather it is that I am a prehistoric cat, a sabertooth, something I could not have known about it been exposed to in any meaningful way. So where does it fall? One can argue, easily at that, that the association sprung from the underlying awareness in the subconscious that I knew of this thing "large cat with large teeth" from millions of years of human evolution, wherein we know cats preyed upon humans reliably since the two first encountered one another's distant ancestors and we know cats historically have always had longer teeth over time than they do now; the dominance of conical teeth being remarkably recent. This is the same idea of how many people who have never seen a snake for themselves or have never been exposed to any form of arachnid react with immediate, irrational fear. One could also further hypothesize that because I was around cats during the in-utero and post-patrum developmental stage, I was quite possibly exposed to the infectious agent in Toxoplasmosis gondii and that it altered my perception and demeanor toward cats as it is theorized to do in humans, but this does not explain say, people with similar stories who have "Always been a wolf.", for example.

 

Marc

Member
http:////applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png

As a kid, really the only thing I had 'family-wise' were other animals. I couldn't really have a family (my family only really being my mom tbh despite my family being huge - I just don't like being around fake love; who does? Blood family really doesn't mean much to me if it's toxic.) so I latched onto the next best thing psychologically. Other animals are just so genuine and I truly value their sincerity. Plus, they teach us so much with few words.​

I found my identity at a time where I was the most vulnerable I have ever been and now Vulture's hold such a meaningful part in my life.​

 ​

Everything just clicked.


 
Top