Reddit mentions of Dissociative Identity Disorder: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment of Multiple Personality (Wiley Series in General and Clinical Psychiatry)

Courtesy ping back to /u/NutellaIsDelicious and /u/Falunel

I have no idea what you're talking about. What you're describing is not Dissociative Identity Disorder, Schizophrenia, or Psychosis.

You're referencing blogs trying to use that for backing your opinion? That really helps your argument about as much as a bucket would stop a tsunami.

Since psychosis seems to be your main argument, this might be a worthwhile read for you since your descriptions mean you have no idea what psychosis is...

Parker, G. F. (2014). DSM-5 and psychotic and mood disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(2), 182-190.

You also bring up Schizophrenia, again, you're off mark but you would be less so than saying psychosis.

Tandon, R., Gaebel, W., Barch, D. M., Bustillo, J., Gur, R. E., Heckers, S., ... & Van Os, J. (2013). Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5. Schizophrenia research, 150(1), 3-10.

Regarding confusing schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, you're not alone. The former is sometimes a misdiagnosed latter. There's been work done to help differentiate them better, which you can read about here.

Ellason, J. W., & Ross, C. A. (1995). Positive and negative symptoms in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: A comparative analysis. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 183(4), 236-241.

If you want a good description of DID, so you can understand it better. This is a great read...

Ross, C. A. (1997). Dissociative identity disorder: Diagnosis, clinical features, and treatment of multiple personality . John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lastly, go give this a good read.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

****
Just to explain something here, Jung and Freud were quite the pioneers in this field. Both were born in the 1800s and died last century. They were elderly at the onset of WWII. Though much of their work influenced works today, most of what they've written has been by-and-large discredited by modern research. Both names are a bit of a joke when people bring them up in a scientific debate in university classes, from personal experience. They both lived before electricity was 'a thing'.

Using Jung or Freud as your basis is like saying a car developed by Henry Ford is better than a Tesla. Ford lived about the same time frame, and I'm sorry to tell you, technology has advanced past the Model T. It was a scientific marvel in it's time, and paved the way for things to come, but the basis of what it was is extremely outdated and admired solely for it's pioneering in antiquity only.

Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Henry Ford were pioneers, but their advances are no longer the technology and understanding of today. We've learned so much more and advanced so much farther. Neuroscience, psychology, and engineering were in their infancy in those times. Things have come a long way, their advances have become obsolete from further advances in understanding.