We're coming with a handful of respectful criticism to peer-review your theory. We absolutely agree that some (maybe even all) people are just born multiple. But the claim that singularity doesn't happen naturally imposes a very important question: if all people since the begining of humanity were born multiple, why singularity even exists? If it was something unnecesary that just for any reason happened in our culture, we would see many different cultures where multiplicity is the norm. But even in cultures where plurality is widely accepted only certain individuals are not singular themselves. It is in our mind also unlikely that plurals could learn to merge just because society expected it from them. There has to be a mechanism in the brain that allows for fusing and it must have evolved, because we can't just change our brains as we or anybody else wants (homosexual people stay homosexual, no matter how hard they try to not be to blend in with society). So either fusion into singular entity at one point in life have evolved, because it was for some reason beneficial, or it just have been like this since humans have existed (either way it means that if somebody doesn't have working genes responsible for fusion, they will be plural, no matter if they expierience trauma or not).
Personally we think that ego states that child has are not the same as multiplicity. Some models suggests that adults also have them. We belive that individual people in systems have them too. Your different ego state is active when you're angry compared to the one active when you're happy or you regress etc. We don't agree with models suggesting that headmates in multiplicity are just separated ego states (although it may be look like this for some multiples), because ego states are only dimensions of one personality, while headmates often have multidimensional personalities on their own and are much more than "the angry one" or "the internal child".
We're coming with a handful of respectful criticism to peer-review your theory. We absolutely agree that some (maybe even all) people are just born multiple. But the claim that singularity doesn't happen naturally imposes a very important question: if all people since the begining of humanity were born multiple, why singularity even exists? If it was something unnecesary that just for any reason happened in our culture, we would see many different cultures where multiplicity is the norm. But even in cultures where plurality is widely accepted only certain individuals are not singular themselves. It is in our mind also unlikely that plurals could learn to merge just because society expected it from them. There has to be a mechanism in the brain that allows for fusing and it must have evolved, because we can't just change our brains as we or anybody else wants (homosexual people stay homosexual, no matter how hard they try to not be to blend in with society). So either fusion into singular entity at one point in life have evolved, because it was for some reason beneficial, or it just have been like this since humans have existed (either way it means that if somebody doesn't have working genes responsible for fusion, they will be plural, no matter if they expierience trauma or not).
Personally we think that ego states that child has are not the same as multiplicity. Some models suggests that adults also have them. We belive that individual people in systems have them too. Your different ego state is active when you're angry compared to the one active when you're happy or you regress etc. We don't agree with models suggesting that headmates in multiplicity are just separated ego states (although it may be look like this for some multiples), because ego states are only dimensions of one personality, while headmates often have multidimensional personalities on their own and are much more than "the angry one" or "the internal child".