Beyond Boundaries Buy the new eBook from Bon. "Beyond Boundaries" is the culmination of five years of research, practice and hard work. It's $18.00 at Google Checkout.
When Hope is Not Enough Buy "When Hope is Not Enough" eBook from Google Checkout (and save $0.50!):
But I Love You Buy "But I Love You" eBook from Google Checkout:
A free eBook – 4X4 for Nons
|
 Non-BPDs and self-image I have starting thinking about the concept of “trade” words. What that means is that we nons “trade” certain words for other words. The purpose behind this is to re-make our ways of thinking – it helps to combat black-and-white thinking, shame and fear in ourselves. One of the concepts that I expound on in “When Hope is Not Enough” is the idea that one’s own language shapes one’s thoughts. While in that section of the book, I focus on the non-bp’s thoughts and words in relation to the person with BPD, here I am interested in how a non-BP thinks about his/herself.
Here are some examples of “trade” words and phrase that I have either discovered or developed:
Old Word: Must
Trade Word: Prefer, would like to
Old Word: Should
Trade Word: Choose to
(from now on the old word/phrase will appear first, the trade word next – just so I don’t have to type “Old Word:” “Trade Word:” over and over again…)
Can’t
Choose not to
Have to
Want to
Ought
Had better
All
Many or most
Always
Often or typically
Can’t stand
Don’t like
Awful
Undesirable
Bad Person
Bad Behavior
I am a failure
I failed at
Anxious
Concerned
Depressed
Sad
Angry
Annoyed or frustrated
Hurt
Disappointed
Guilt
Remorse about
Jealous
Concerned about the relationship
Never
Not often
is
seems like
is
feels like
I am certainly open to more suggestions. Here are some examples when thinking about yourself:
“I must do well” = “I want (or wish) to do well”
“I shouldn’t do that” = “I prefer not to do that”
“I am a bad person” = “I did a negative thing”
“I need love” = “I want love, but not need it to live”
“I can’t stand this” = “I don’t like this”
“I am a loser” = “I lost (or failed) at a task”
 Megan Fox and BPD A little while ago, I wrote a piece on Megan Fox and her statements in an interview that she was considering the possibility that she had a “borderline” personality. I got several reactions that she probably didn’t know what she was talking about or that she was merely emulating/reflecting her “heroine” – Marilyn Monroe. (Fox has a tattoo of Marilyn Monroe on the right forearm).
I read the interview with Fox in “Rolling Stone” this month and found that, if she was being honest in the interview, there is a distinct possibility that she does have BPD. Here are some of the salient points…
In “When Hope is Not Enough,” I point to three features of BPD that I think are common to all people with the disorder. They are: emotional dysregulation, shame and impulsivity. So, let’s start there:
Emotional Dysregulation
Fox: “…But it doesn’t mean I don’t struggle. I am very vulnerable. But I can be aggressive, hurtful, domineering and selfish, too. I’m emotionally unpredictable and all over the place. I’m a control freak. My temper is ridiculously bad. I’ve destroyed my house.”
As a child she had, “panic attacks that manifested themselves as violent, rageful temper tantrums. Like I didn’t know how to control myself or what to do.”
 When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds! Shame
Fox: “I’m really insecure about everything. Like what those reporters said about the movie, all I could think was, ‘They’re mocking me… I have a sick feeling of being mocked all the time. I have a lot of self-loathing.”
Impulsivity
Fox: “I go batshit. I’ve had to say to Brian (her boyfriend), ‘You have to go and stop talking to me, because I’m going to kill you. I’m going to stab you with something. Please leave.’ I’d never own a gun for that reason. I wouldn’t shoot to kill. But I’d shoot him in the leg, for sure.”
More evidence…
As a child, she started seeing a therapist because of her real “emotional problems,” but it didn’t seem to help.
She is sensitive about the environment. She can’t sleep with someone touching her. She requires a “cocoon” of pillows to make her feel safe. She can’t sleep in the quiet and dark. She doesn’t like to look in the mirror. She admits to drawing blood during sex, but doesn’t elaborate. She admits to self-injury, but doesn’t elaborate. She hints at an eating disorder, but doesn’t elaborate. She is a “bi-sexual.”
And more. If half of the things in the interview are honest and true, I think Megan Fox may have leaped over my other “celebs with possible BPD (but not for sure)” list.
 Are you and your BP on the same team? I often hear people with BPD/ERD say that they feel that their loved ones are “not on my side” or that the loved ones are “supposed to be on my side.” This phrase stuck out at me when I read the story about the suicide of Megan Meier (the “MySpace suicide” case), because, although I have no insight into Megan’s mental health, clearly when she was insulted and rejected on MySpace, and she was emotionally dysregulated. She came to her mother, and after her mother admonished her for the use of foul language on MySpace, Megan cried and said, “You’re my mom. You’re supposed to be on my side!” ( This according to her mother’s reports).
When someone is highly emotional, they need to know that they have an advocate and that someone is on “their side.” I often ask my consulting clients (especially partners of people with emotional regulation issues) if they feel that their partner and they are “on the same team.” Many times the answer is no. Why does someone have a desire to have someone on their side, even when the “sides” are not desired, intended or even clearly delineated? The answer in my mind comes down to shame and rejection sensitivity.
If a person has shame (or even low self-worth, which is similar), then the person is likely to have a high level of rejection sensitivity. Being rejected by others is painful, especially for emotional people. Having an advocate of their “side” of the issue, which is essentially answering, “I am on your side no matter what the situation,” is tantamount in these highly emotional, social interactions that involve rejection. One can be “on their side” emotionally without condoning whatever behavior that one doesn’t agree with.
There are teaching moments and there are times that one doesn’t teach. If you try and teach, punish or impart values during a period of emotional dysregulation, the relationship will be damaged and nothing effective will be accomplished. Instead, emotional validation and support can be used to cool the bonfire. Once it is cool, then a teaching moment can present itself.
Here is a video put out by PA Gym shooter George Sodini about his emotions… I post this not to provide him with sympathy. He made a horrible choice that will ruin the lives of many. I post it because it illustrates the power of negative emotions on a person’s psyche.
Obviously, my heart goes out to his victims more than to him. I just wonder how many other people are suffering out there in isolation and painful emotions. So many people require emotional skills. IMO most violence, included these horrible mass murders, are caused by painful emotions.
Last week, I was reading a portion of Dr. Marsha Linehan’s book “Cognitive Behavior Treatment Of Borderline Personality Disorder” and stumbled upon a reference that I had never noticed before. It reads:
Emotional validation strategies contrast with approaches that focus on the overreactivity of emotions or the distorted basis of their generation. Thus, they are more like the approach of Greenberg and Safran (1987), who make a distinction between primary or “authentic” emotions and secondary of “learned” emotions. The latter are reactions to primary cognitive appraisals and emotional responses; they are the end products of chains of feelings and thoughts. Dysfunctional and maladaptive emotions, according to Greenberg and Safran, are usually secondary emotions that block the experience and expression of primary emotions. These authors go on to suggest that “all primary affective emotions provides adaptive motivational information to the organism” (1987, p. 176). The important point here is the suggestion that dysfunctional and maladaptive responses to events are often connected or interwoven with “authentic” or valid responses to these events. Finding and amplifying these primary responses constitute the essence of emotional validation. The honesty of the therapist in applying these strategies cannot be overstressed. If emotional validation strategies are used as change strategies – that is, if lip service is given to validation in order to simply to calm the patient down for the “real work” – the therapist can expect the therapy to backfire. Such honesty, in turn, depends on the therapist’s belief that there is a substantial validity to be found, and that searching for it is therapeutically useful.
This idea is an important one for loved ones of those with BPD because it touches on several points:
- It acknowledges that emotional validation focuses on “normal” emotional reactions, not “the overreactivity of emotions or the distorted basis of their generation.” That is the way of emotional invalidation, i.e. “You’re overreacting to something trivial. Look at what really happened.” I see that expression from Non-BPs all the time.
- It points out the differences between primary and secondary emotions. This distinction is extreme useful for Non-BPs. Why? Because most often the anger and rage are secondary emotions (not always) and that is typically what Nons focus on. If the emotional validation is used for secondary emotions, then I interpret this as not therapeutic, because you are “validating the invalid.”
- Probing (gently and compassionately) for the primary emotions seems to be a more effective strategy and those are the emotions that can be validated effectively.
- One has to approach emotional validation as a tool unto itself – without using it as a “change strategy.” That is, “it is ok to feel that, but you have to change the way you feel to be ‘normal’.” That is, bound to backfire.
- If this distinction of primary and secondary emotions – the first being true and “authentic”, the second being dysfunctional and maladaptive – is applied to the concept of mentalization, then the idea within mentalization to use emotional validation to probe for further feelings begins to make more sense. One has to help the BP locate the primary emotion.
When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds!
 Fear and Shame Today, I figured I would discuss fear and shame. Not many people realize the impact that these two emotions have on people’s behavior. I believe that most of the “controlling” behavior in relationships is based on these two emotions. My daughter is angry at her boyfriend for being controlling. He monitors her and gets upset when she does something that is not what he expects. I believe that his behavior has to do with his fear of losing her to someone else and his shame that he feels deep down that he is not really good enough for her. Shame is particularly corrosive, and it is, of course, a big problem in BPD. Fear has to do with the unexpected and thinking about the future with trepidation. Expecting the worst or, better, fearing the worse, is how many people operate – especially if they are wracked with shame.
The core idea here however, is that these two emotions, which motivate controlling behavior, are not about the person who is being “controlled.” No, these emotions are about the controller. I often say in my group (and in my book) that poor behavior in someone with BPD (or anyone in fact) is “not about you” (the recipient of the behavior) or, after rephrasing it: “it’s all about his/her feelings” One of the misunderstandings of that attitude in some of my readers is that some people read that and think “When is it about MY feelings?” That was never the intention of this approach. In fact, the idea was intended to be a way of elucidating the motivation of the behaviors to which Non-BPs object. You see, in my experience, the behaviors of a person with BPD (or anyone emotional) can be explained as being motivated by poorly regulated emotions. The behaviors serve a function which is to halt the negative and overpowering emotional states. Fear and shame are very painful emotions and any person will do anything to halt them (anything to stop the pain). So, while the behaviors seem to be directed at you (like my daughter’s boyfriends controlling behavior seems to be directed at her), in reality the function of the behaviors is to halt the pain. If the fear and shame were not present, the behaviors would cease to exist. That is why I encourage people to act on the emotions directly, rather than on the behaviors directly. This is possible through the application of emotional skills both within one’s own mind and within the context of the relationship.
OK readers, now is the time to revisit Lindsay (I think I was spelling her first name wrong for a while there) Lohan and possible BPD. She has all of the classic signs of the disorder. I was struck by this quote:
“Sam and Lindsay are speaking,” the source tells PEOPLE. “But Sam has begged Lindsay to get help.”
“Lindsay, despite appearances, is insecure and has relied on Samantha and their relationship to build her up,” explains the pal. “Lindsay barely sleeps, which explains a lot of her behavior. She’s exhausted. She can’t even sit down for a minute without pacing around the room. It’s really sad.”
Sam is begging Lindsay to get help? For what? Well, perhaps we know. Looking at Lindsay’s case, I can’t help but see Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). She is erractic, emotional and sexually confused. She has all the classic signs of an untreated person with BPD. I hope she gets help – and I hope that, if she is diagnosed with BPD, she would come out publically and say so – to reduce the stigma of the disorder.
 Lindsay Lohan and BPD?
Alrighty then! I did an analysis of the keyword searches that reached the ATSTP blog. Unfortunately, the readers are searching on celebrity-related BPD searches more and more. People trying to figure out which celebrity has BPD (or self-harms) represented a whopping 68% of my total searches in the past 30 days of those search strings that occurred 5 times or more. It is too cumbersome for me to do analysis of more than those (there were 3800+ of those and 5800+ of all search strings). Of the celebrity-related searches, I created a little graph (below). As you can see, Angelina Jolie wins the “borderline bonanza” with 18%+ of the searches, followed by Britney Spears and Kurt Cobain. Others* include Pete Doherty, Hitler, Courtney Love and Heather Mills. The runners-up were Amy Winehouse and Princess Diana. General means there was no name mentioned, just “celebrity BPD” or something like that.
 Celebrity Searches on ATSTP |
When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds!
Duh! Anyway, here is an article from Wired about celebrities and mental illness:
 Celebrities’ bad behavior is rooted in mental illness, according to “Dr. Drew” Pinsky, who is best known as the host of Celebrity Rehab and Loveline — a nationally syndicated radio show that invites listeners to call in with questions about sex and drugs.
In his latest book, The Mirror Effect (on bookstore shelves Tuesday), he spells out a theory that stars are predisposed to narcissistic personality disorder long before they become famous. Their dysfunctional behavior is rewarded by Hollywood and portrayed as normal by the press.
“As reporting on celebrity behavior becomes even more ruthless and mean-spirited, I am struck by this disconnect between how a
celebrity’s behavior is portrayed in the media, and the very real problems that underlie their actions,” wrote Pinsky.
He argues that the media fails to acknowledge that celebrities are mentally ill when holding them up as role models, so everyday people have begun to emulate their unhealthy behavior.
In 2006, Pinsky and his co-author Mark Young published the first systematic study of celebrity psychology in the Journal of Research in Personality. The new book explains that research and how it fits into the larger context of our culture, which they argue has been soiled by shameless producers, agents and paparazzi.
The first three chapters read like a history textbook, recapping famous celebrity mishaps and an era when those unfortunate episodes were carefully hidden from the public. It gives readers a glimpse of just how conservative Pinsky really is. He seems to prefer the good old days when movie studios were able to keep Rock Hudson in the closet.
The celebrity doctor is not a fan of MySpace or Facebook either, because they allow people to seek attention by acting out like celebrities — posting provocative pictures and personal stories about irresponsible behavior.
“Without appropriate monitoring, these social networking platforms are subject to abuse by those who are most vulnerable to the endless feedback loop they create,” wrote Pinsky. “This is known as an urge/compulsion/reinforcement cycle, and it’s very similar to what happens to those who crave drugs or other addictive substances.”
After that rather stiff introduction, the book becomes a psychology lesson with celebrities as examples.
Pinsky seems fond of interpreting behavior in the light of evolution, and gave this explanation for the asinine stunts performed by Johnny Knoxville and Steve-O on the show Jackass.
“Some have speculated that such acting out may be deeply rooted in our genes, as a way to display genetic prowess and adaptability,” wrote Pinsky. “In this theory, males (in particular) who survive dangerous stunts are displaying their biological capacity to survive in adversity.”
In their 2006 study, Pinsky and Young found that celebrities from reality television score the highest on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Pinsky is convinced that the producers of those shows carefully select contestants with psychological problems, because they will bring extra drama to each show.
“Having served as a consultant to several reality shows, I know what the producers are looking for in contestants,” wrote Pinsky. “The standards regarding mental health are extremely fluid.”
 I was reading the book “Emotional Awareness” which is a transcript of a conversation between the Dalai Lama and Dr. Paul Ekman (two of my favorites!). On pages 45-47, Ekman talks about the idea of “emotional profiles.” He says he has spent many decades of his career identifying the similarities between people in their emotional lives and now, through emotional profiles, is identifying differences in people’s emotional lives. I noticed when reading the book is that there are a number of factors that seem to affect a person’s emotional profile. Ekman says a bit about it, yet when I researched and thought about writing “When Hope is Not Enough” I found that there are five factors that affect someone’s emotional profile. Those are:
- Tolerance – the sensitivity to being triggered
- Uptick speed – how quickly someone gets to maximum emotional intensity
- Intensity – how “high” and intense the emotion goes
- Length of time at maximum intensity – how long one can maintain maximum intensity
- Down hill speed – how quickly the emotion peters out
I have to think more about this idea and maybe more will come. Unfortunately, Ekman’s work on this will not be published until later this year.
|
Loading ...
