The mass control-oriented dynamics of digital communication networks and social media applications almost impose on individuals “adaptation by dividing” through cyber dissociative experiences. According to dissoanalysis developed by Ozturk as a modern psychotraumatology theory, individuals are forced to adapt by experiencing dissociative defenses on the axis of a traumatizing “hyperdigital stimulation”. Successive dissociative defenses have brought “cyber dissociative experiences”, “cyber alter personalities”, “multiple memory systems” and “multiple consciousness systems” that individuals and societies are now controlled and even managed by dissociogenic digital network platforms. With the dominance of cyber communication over face-to-face communication, these cyber communications have begun to be perceived as more real by the maximal proportion of individuals. In this dysfunctional process, cyber alter personalities of individuals take control and transform cyber dissociative experiences into cyber dissociation. Today, “hysterical cyber blindness” that occurs after chronic cyber traumatization both interrupts the consciousness of individuals and causes them to be controlled by dissociogenic digital network platforms and social media applications. Ozturk’s detailed and systematic scientific studies, emphasizing that digital communication networks and social media applications are used as a mass consciousness control strategy by oppressive systems and dictators, have brought the field of “dissoanalytic cyber psychology” to the fore. According to the dissoanalytic theory, it is only possible for cyber societies, which are managed by establishing oppression and control, to break their ties with their dominating systems through “dissociative revolutions”. In the age of cyber dissociation, with the realization of dissociative revolutions, a development-oriented, creative, compassionate, fair and prudent new human and society profile is constructed by providing the psychosocial consciousness alliance of the masses. Cyber dissociative revolutions function through cyber dissociative experiences at the global psychodigital intersection of multiple consciousness and memory systems that emerged as an existential reaction against oppressive societies.

Keywords: Cyber dissociative experiences; cyber alter personality; theory of dissoanalysis; the age of cyber dissociation; mass dissociation; dissoanalytic cyber psychology; mass consciousness control; cyber traumatization; denial trauma; dissociative revolution

Theory of Dissoanalysis, The Age of Cyber Dissociation and Mass Consciousness Control
In oppressive societies, digital communication networks and social media applications are used to provide the mass consciousness control and almost impose cyber dissociative experiences on individuals. Anonymous dynamics, psychodigital delegations and mobile components that prevent individuals of modern society from being authentic and individualized cause a new dissociation phenomenon, defined by Ozturk as “cyber dissociative experiences”, to be experienced by the masses, and digital communication networks function as a dissociogenic agent in this psychopathogenic process. According to the theory of dissoanalysis, all societies of the world are now both controlled and managed through digital communication networks and social media that cause cyber dissociative reactions. Today, traumatized societies of the digital age, which encounter “cyber dissociative experiences” at maximal proportions, have now shown a psychosocial transformation and even started to create direction-oriented new human and society profiles. The “Age of Cyber Dissociation” began with the reign of the directed psychodigital focuses, which are closely related to the submissive identities of the new human and social profiles that emerged between the years 2000-2020, far from originality and creativity. Unless dissoanalysis of traumatized individuals, dissociogenic systems, societies controlled by oppression or cyber masses can be carried out, no person or nation can get rid of its violence-oriented and borderline psychopathogenic components, or even gain an orientation towards a developmental and integrative life organization. Ozturk’s Theory of Dissoanalysis is the whole of multidimensional scientific efforts, effective psychotherapy practices, and strategies to prevent short and long-term psychosocial traumatic experiences to end both intergenerational transmission of trauma and intergenerational transfer of psychopathology. In this context, dissoanalysis is a psychotraumatology theory and psychocommunal therapy that includes functional, interactive, and integrative psychotherapy methods. The dissoanalytic school, which also includes current psychohistory paradigms, importantly emphasizes that traumatic experiences are accompanied by dissociative reactions. According to Ozturk, the main purpose of dissoanalysis in terms of psychohistorical perspective is to create integrative individuals and societies open to development [1-5].
Dissoanalytical cyber psychology begins with Ozturk’s “Cyber Societies and Cyber Lives: Digital Communication Networks as a Dissociogenic Agent” study in 2020, which clearly emphasizes that digital communication networks and social media applications are used as a dissociogenic mass consciousness control agent by oppressive systems. The digital age almost imposes “adaptation by dividing” on individuals with the promise or illusion of an apparently more functional life experience. Digital network platforms cause the experience of harmony-oriented dual lives by creating a separation between the original or real identity of today’s people and their digital identity. Adaptation by dividing serves a dual function as one of the defense mechanisms that individuals in modern societies use quite often on digital network platforms. While individuals in cyberspace adapt by dividing on the one hand, they develop cyber dissociative psychopathologies on the other hand [1-3,6]. This “adaptation by dividing” brought along individuals’ “cyber dissociative lives”, “cyber alter personalities”, “multiple consciousness systems” and “multiple memory systems” and transformed the existing traditional society structure into a cyber society structure on a dissociogenic ground. Cyber dissociative experiences, which function with interruptions in consciousness and memory, show a mobile and dual psychosocial movement characterized by identity transitions. In postmodern oppressive societies, the individual and mass-oriented control and management process is carried out by creating cyber dissociation through digital communication networks and social media applications which are dissociogenic agents. Digital communication networks and social media applications, which are dissociogenic agents, dissociate individuals and societies by exposing them to cyber traumatization and overstimulation. Ozturk states that cyber society profiles are created with cyber icons, abusive dictators, authors, or artists allied with the oppressive system, so-called scientists and incompetent politicians. According to the theory of dissoanalysis, cyber dissociative experiences come into play as a defense system against the anonymizing and disinhibiting effects of modern society and turn into cyber dissociation over time [1-4,6-8].

Digital Communication Networks as Dissociogenic Agents, Cyber Dissociative Experiences and Cyber Alter Personality
Digital communication networks and social media applications, which are dissociogenic agents, shift the focus of attention to individuals by keeping people away from reciprocal dual communications or society, or even by controlling them. Individuals and societies, whose focus of attention is shifted to themselves, can easily take on an obedient nature by moving away from empathy and absolute reality that they now act directed and involuntarily with their traumatized narcissistic selves as if they were the servants of their iconic totems. Individuals, whose focus of attention is shifted to themselves, quickly shift towards a psychological nature that is exhibitionistic, voyeuristic, assertive, competitive, megalomaniacal, and directed. When the ratio of this directed and weak-minded mass in a society to the average increases, wars become inevitable, and childhood traumas and dysfunctional family dynamics begin to be experienced at very high levels. In the dissoanalytic psychohistorical perspective, the only way to prevent wars is to end childhood traumas and violence-oriented negative child-rearing styles [1,2,5,9,10]. According to the theory of dissoanalysis, digital communication networks and social media applications cause very important psychosociopolitical transformations and developments of individuals in today’s society, both in psychological, sociological and political dimensions, and both normalize cyber dissociative experiences that bridge and transition between clinical dissociation and dissociation of actual life by revealing new human profiles that differ considerably from individuals in the recent past. Today, maladaptive, and dysfunctional uses of digital communications cause cyber traumas and cyber dissociative reactions. However, normal individuals can establish associative bonds between their cyber and actual lives and can optimally integrate dual lives with these two different thinking and behavior patterns. Adapting to the age of cyber dissociation, which is changing at an extremely rapid pace, is quite difficult or even impossible for most individuals. In societies where childhood traumas, wars and oppressive systems reign, cyber dissociative experiences, even cyber psychopathologies, and cyber addictions are experienced at maximal proportions [1-3,11-13]. Ozturk classified cyber dissociative experiences into seven sub-dimensions as “cyber alter personality”, “cyber dissociative amnesia”, “cyber depersonalization”, “cyber derealization”, “cyber identity confusion”, “cyber control” and “cyber direction”.
In the age of cyber dissociation, digital communication networks as a dissociogenic agent have significantly structured the psychosocial changes and even transformations of individuals and societies. Individuals and societies are both controlled and managed by creating “mass dissociation” and “cyber dissociation” through digital communication networks by oppressive systems and dictators. Cyber societies, where digital communication is the primary communication style, have their own rules and dynamics. In fact, in these cyber societies, individuals have begun to find a way to live in a psychologically integrated way. As reemphasized, the digital communication networks, which cause the emergence of new human profiles that differ considerably compared to the individuals in the recent past, normalize cyber dissociation, which bridges between clinical dissociation and dissociation of actual life. The traumatizing dynamics of the intense stimulus bombardment in the age of cyber dissociation force individuals to dissociate and apparently adapt on this “hyperstimulation” background. Today, digital communication networks cause a separation between the real identity of individuals and their digital identity, and because of this separation, dual lives emerge. The biggest psychological dilemma created by digital network platforms on individuals of cyber society is that they must integrate their “dual lives” with different natures. Cyber dissociative reactions, which were initially harmony-oriented, are transformed into cyber dissociative experiences and cyber dissociation on a clinical axis through chronic cyber traumas, dysfunctional family dynamics, psychosocial oppressions, and digital abuses [1,2,5-8].
According to Ozturk, if individuals can integrate their cyber identities in digital network platforms and social media applications with their real identities and manage these two identities at an optimal level, they can continue their current lives in a psychologically healthy way without being traumatized and dissociated. However, the fact that digital network platforms have the power to establish control over the individual, to make the individual obey and to increase cyber addictions makes the integration of these two identities very difficult. The cyber dissociative experiences, cyber dissociation and cyber alter personality that emerged in this direction are the very essence of a postmodern adaptation effort to the high-level stimuli and multiple realities in the digital space! However, when the cyber alter personality comes to the fore in digital communications that are intensively preferred or almost forced, the integration between cyber identity and real identity is considerably lost. In today’s age of cyber dissociation, digital communication networks force people to adaptation by dividing, causing cyber life to be perceived as more real than real life at maximal proportions and finally cyber dissociative experiences come into play as a maladaptive process [1-4,6,14].

Denial Trauma, Mass Dissociation and Hysterical Cyber Blindness versus Dissociative Revolution and Psychosocial Consciousness Alliance
According to the dissoanalytic school, most of the people in cyber societies try to both exist and become individualized with cyber realities. With the dissociogenic effect of digital network platforms, especially social media applications, individuals and societies have entered in the process of a rapid transformation, and they have become managed by the technology itself, which is the inventor of this transformation process, and they have even moved away from their real selves. In today’s digital age, individuals show a dual psychosocial movement between their real and cyber identities with the effect of both childhood traumas and cyber traumas. This dual psychosocial movement causes a phobic avoidance between their cyber identities and their real identities, and over time, “cyber dissociative experiences” begin to emerge in these individuals. Cyber dissociative experiences initially develop as a defense mechanism that protects the psychological stability of individuals against the exhibitionist, spectator and ruthless nature of digital network platforms and social media applications and eventually turns into cyber dissociation, so that after this process, individuals have a separate “cyber life” and a “real life”. Individuals can generally make healthy decisions at the optimal stimulation level in their current lives and continue their lives in a psychologically integrated manner. Living a life below or above the optimal stimulation level of individuals drags them into a dissociated life. Especially the overstimulation in social media applications can lead to “cyber dissociation” in individuals. Cyber dissociation and cyber dissociative experiences are actually an effort to adapt to hyperdigital stimulations in this digital space. The individual, who lost his self-control and turned into a submissive object due to chronic childhood traumas, psychosocial oppressions, dysfunctional family dynamics and cyber traumas, experiences an intense “psychodigital dissociation” between his/her cyber life and his/her real life. In digital-oriented communications, traumatized individuals cannot maximally integrate their cyber life with their real life, and they split. After this splitting, cyber life on behalf of the individual is more real than real life, and even cyber life becomes real life itself. Oppressive systems and dominant leaders or dictators have imprisoned individuals and societies in an age of “self-sabotage” and “mass control-oriented” cyber dissociation [1,3,4,6]!
According to Ozturk, digital communications, which continue to function by causing interruptions in consciousness and memory, and even enable the emergence of multiple consciousness and multiple memory systems, function concomitantly with cyber dissociative experiences. The number of individuals who can control consciousness and memory interruptions in cyberspace has increased. However, in the age of cyber dissociation, where face-to-face communication is less preferred over cyber communication, individuals with borderline personality organization can become an object or even a “cyber victim” of fusion communications characterized by disruptions of consciousness and memory, which are further increased by the effects of cyber traumas and cyber abusers they encounter in the online space. Individuals can establish different cyber lives with the need for an unconscious, semi-conscious or conscious dividing to get rid of their intense anxieties associated with the oppressive system in their current lives and to be apparently free, and then these divided dual lives can lead co-consciously or unconsciously, and these individuals either try to be more functional by dividing, or they believe or are made to believe that they can be more functional. In clinical interviews conducted by psychotherapists with people who have experienced cyber dissociative experiences, it has been reported that they stated that they were associated or integrated while splitting, which Ozturk defined itself as “associative dissociation”. Psychodigital dissociation, which exists in a conjugate nature with associative dissociation, can strongly transform into cyber dissociation [1-3,6,15,16]. According to the theory of dissoanalysis, it is not surprising to come across profiles of people who can be functional or even creative while being divided today. Individuals of the age of cyber dissociation have now begun to learn the methods of optimally coping with their cyber or real-life traumas that when cyber dissociation against cyber traumas is experienced at a certain level, it allows people to maintain their functionality and reveal their creativity. Cyber alter personalities, which can emerge with the effect of cyber traumas and chronic childhood traumas that start at an early age, are actually an intense longing for individuals to process their traumatic experiences and eventually integrate, as well as a harsh reaction and existential struggle against the abusive system in which they exist. Digital network platforms have a structure that can be controlled, monitored, backed up and even recorded, and this structure seriously hurts, traumatizes, and dissociates individuals [1-4,6,7]. Individuals’ preference of communication in cyberspace to face-to-face communication causes them to experience “hysterical cyberblindness”. Due to this hysterical cyberblindness, individuals fail to realize that they are the real ones controlled on digital network platforms and have to experience cyber dissociative experiences! Dissociogenic digital communication networks impose a denial-oriented life on individuals and societies. While cyber traumatizations continue to create cyber victims in the space from individual to society, cyber dissociative experiences exist and mass consciousness control is carried out by oppressive systems using digital communication networks. In cyberspace, individuals can be both “abusers” and “victims” at the same time, and they deny the identity of the “abuser” while being a victim and the identity of the “victim” while being an abuser. The phenomenon of dissociative denial, experienced as a “dissociative oscillation” process, turns into a denial trauma; and cyber dissociative experiences, in fact, refer to the denial trauma itself [1-5].
Today, individuals and societies characterized by cyber dissociative experiences have already learned and even adopted to continue their lives in an apparently functional way by using dissociative defenses against negative child-rearing styles, childhood traumas, psychosocial oppressions, and authoritarian but ambivalent parents. Oppressive systems and dictators have succeeded in creating a directed and global cyber society, and they both manage and control this cyber society through cyber dissociation. According to Ozturk, just as childhood traumas are hidden in violence-oriented negative child-rearing styles, cyber traumas and digital abuses are also hidden in digital network platforms through cyber dissociative experiences [1,3-6,17-20]. Now, every right or wrong fantasy can easily turn into reality on behalf of all individuals in every age group in cyber societies that move away from the optimal control focus of the family at an early age and are stuck in the psychodigital control focus. Digital communication networks come into play as a dissociogenic agent when these limitless dreams or fantasies come true easily. Cyber dissociative experiences or cyber dissociation are both a challenge and an adaptation effort and a search for freedom developed against all kinds of oppressive systems that take away the subjectivity of individuals and societies. Digital visibility and popularity in cyber societies has become one of the most indispensable addictions of today. In the name of digital visibility and popularity, absolute reality, psychosocial reciprocity, and personal privacy no longer matter. Cyber societies allow individuals to express and (also) hide their real identities, feelings, and thoughts whenever they want to. What an individual hides is everything he/she does not present and share in the cyber space, which is the sum of his/her true personality, his/her true self, and the parts he/she cannot change. Freedom in cyberspace is a total utopia, even a dystopia! The new world order in cyber societies is achieved through “dissociative revolutions” that emerge with the simultaneous development-oriented reaction of the masses. Dissociative revolutions are the actions of individuals and societies that have been controlled and managed by oppression and traumatization for many years to cut their ties with their fascist leaders or dictators and to liberate them, and with these actions, psychosocial consciousness alliance is provided, a new human and society profile is created with a development-oriented and prudent [1-3,5-7]. On the other hand, cyber dissociative revolutions take place through cyber dissociative experiences at the global psychodigital intersection of multiple consciousness and memory systems that emerge as an existential reaction against oppressive societies. Cyber dissociation, the most prominent psychological phenomenon of the digital age, functions as a cyber revolution that makes it possible for the multiple consciousness system to prevail against the utopia of the singularity of consciousness.

1. Ozturk E. Dissoanalysis as a modern psychotraumatology theory: denial trauma and mass dissociation versus dissociative revolution and psychocommunal therapy. Med Sci. 2022;11:1359-85.
2. Ozturk E. Dissoanalysis and the theory of psychosocial consciousness alliance: denial trauma and dissociative projective identity transition. In: Ozturk E, ed, Psychotraumatology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics. 2022;1-40.
3. Ozturk E. Cyber societies and cyber lives: digital communication networks as a dissociogenic agent. In: Ozturk E, ed, Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 2020;1-13.
4. Ozturk E. Trauma and dissociation: basic book of psychotraumatology. 2nd ed. İstanbul Nobel Tıp Kitabevi. 2020;1-399.
5. Ozturk E. Dysfunctional generations versus natural and guiding parenting style: intergenerational transmission of trauma and intergenerational transfer of psychopathology as dissociogenic agents. Med Sci. 2022;11:886-904.
6. Ozturk E, Erdogan B. On the psychodigital components of cyber traumatization and dissociation: a psychosocial depiction of cyber societies as dissociogenic. Med Sci. 2022;11:422-8.
7. Ozturk E. Modern psychotraumatology and dissociation theories. In: Ozturk E, ed, Psychotraumatology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics. 2022;41-69.
8. Ozturk E, Erdogan B. Dissociogenic components of oppression and obedience in regards to psychotraumatology and psychohistory. Med Sci. 2021;10:1059-68.
9. Ozturk E. Psychohistory, trauma and dissociation: the anamnesis of the childhood traumas, wars and dissociation. In: Ozturk E, ed, Psychohistory. Ankara: Turkish Clinics. 2020;1-21.
10. Ozturk E. From dysfunctional family models to functional family model: “natural and guiding parenting style”. In: Ozturk E, ed, Family Psychopathology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics. 2021;1-39.
11. Erdogan B, Ozturk E. Cyber psychopathologies. In: Ozturk E, ed, Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 2020;25-32.
12. Akcan G, Ozturk E, Sarlak D. Cyber addictions and psychological dynamics. In: Ozturk E, ed, Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 2020;33-40.
13. Ozturk E, Derin G. From clinical cyber psychology to forensic cyber psychology: cyber trauma and cyber revictimization. In: Ozturk E, ed, Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 2020;14-24.
14. Calıcı C, Ozturk E. Basic components and intergenerational dynamics of cyber culture. In: Ozturk E, ed, Cyber Psychology. Ankara: Turkish Clinics, 2020;56-62.
15. Ozturk E. Trauma based alliance model therapy. Med Sci. 2021;10:631-50.
16. Ozturk E. Trauma based alliance model therapy: pyschotherapy of dissociative identity disorder. In: Ozturk E, ed, Psychological Trauma and Dissociation. Ankara: Turkish Clinics. 2018;31-8.
17. Ozturk E, Erdogan B, Derin G. Psychotraumatology and dissociation: a theoretical and clinical approach. Med Sci. 2021;10:246-54.
18. Ozturk E, Derin G. Psychotraumatology. Aydın Journal of Humanity and Society. 2020;6:181-214.
19. Ozturk E. Trauma and dissociation: psychotherapy of dissociative identity disorder and family dynamics. İstanbul Nobel Tıp Kitabevi. 2017;1-148.
20. Derin G, Ozturk E. Investigation of psychohistory-based child-rearing styles in terms of intergenerational transmission of trauma. In: Celbis, O, ed, Turaz Academy 2018. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi. 2018;16-29.