What's your perspective on media's depiction of DID? I wrote a (non professional) paper about media representation of schizophrenia and repercussions on people with it, and in the paper I mentioned that another condition that I think has it worse in terms of accurate depictions is DID, mostly due to movies and series using it as a prompt for content.
I think it's very hit or miss, leaning closer to miss, because very few forms of media actually commit to talking about it as a focal point and instead prefer to use it as a plot device. The thing about DID is that if you want to depict it in media, you actually have to put in the elbow grease to understand or learn about it if you want it to be actual representation.
From what I've seen, most depictions of DID end up being very surface level or used as a way to give a character some kind of gimmick. A good example of that would be Diavolo from JJBA, who isn't necessarily maliciously written but is very clearly written to me as a way to give the main antagonist some kind of gimmick to make the nature of his "secrecy" more interesting or compelling. On the contrary, OMORI is a phenomenal example of how to do it right since the entire premise of the game centers around Sunny and his trauma/headspace, and takes a lot of care to dive into the nuance around Sunny's psyche. I've yet to fully play it but from what I've heard/seen/played for myself, it's extremely compelling and well-executed.
Obviously with how insanely individualized DID cases are, it's hard to say any one instance of a system is "incorrect" but to me it's about the subtext and intentions. I take most of it with a grain of salt for that reason, but I'm hesitant to call most instances of DID in media "good representation" unless I know the circumstances in which they were written and how much care they put into depicting the different facets of a system. In a vast majority of cases, that care is not provided.
The average encounter with DID for an average content consumer is the movie Split. I think the movie by itself is entertaining, but the depiction of DID? Awful. What do you think of that movie?
I haven't actually watched it but I have seen clips and read a synopsis. The basis on which the Beast "forms" seems reasonable on paper since as I understand it, it's a manifestation of the main character's abuse history and trauma, which is often how persecutor alters form (and often they form as a direct defense mechanism). I may be misremembering or misunderstanding but the Beast fronting seems to physically "empower" the system's body which... no, certain alters fronting does not make you suddenly invincible or whatever.
From an actual narrative perspective, as is, the movie heavily caters toward the negative stereotype that DID systems are volatile and dangerous, which is far from the truth. I don't hate the premise, as with proper research (including actually talking to real systems) it could make for a film that adds perspective when it comes to persecutor alters and the nuance around their formation. However from what I understand, it lacks a
lot of tact and seems to prefer to use DID as a horror gimmick, which contributes quite badly to the already heavy stigma around DID. I'd say a lot of my opinion on it aligns with what I mentioned in my previous answer, as instead of trying to create a compelling perspective on the nature of DID it focuses more on using it as a scapegoat to enhance the spooky factor, which is especially dangerous in the context of Split's narrative.
TL;DR: it's dangerously uninformed and dangerously written, but the premise isn't terrible and could even be good if there's heavy research and good faith put into it, primarily if the aforementioned research includes perspective from real world systems.
Also, how do you feel about the outdated term multiple personality disorder?
My opinion on it is kind of as you said: it's outdated. It's not
necessarily incorrect in itself but it gives an incorrect picture of how it works and what it is.