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”
 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.
 Practice and Balance When I was a child, I went to a fairly fundamentalist church. We had this Christian tract that showed man on one side and God on the other, with “clouds of sin” in between, obscuring man’s view of God. Repentance and faith in Jesus would “clear the air.” There was another one, with which you are probably familiar if you’ve ever been exposed to these things, where man is on one side and God is on the other and there is a big gulf of sin in between. The cross ends up being the bridge that allows man over the gulf.
Now that I am a grownup I lean more toward skillfulness than faith. However, the idea of “clouds” obscuring a “true view” of reality still appeals to me. These clouds are now sin now, they are ineffective cognitions, whether cognitive distortions or negative emotions. I see the interaction between two people as a dance or a piece of music in which each plays a part. Training, practice and conditioning all come into play when one is preparing to dance. If a dancer over-thinks, she is sure to fall on her rear or step on her partner’s toes. If one’s mind is engaged in cognitive distortions or negative emotions, one can’t dance properly.
Years ago, I read “Zen and the Art of Archery.” In the book, the author has to develop a certain mind-set to hit the target. Much of this mind-set involves getting out of one’s own mental way and practicing the skill until it becomes second-nature. Whether it is archery or dance or interpersonal relationships, I find that much of the time, most people get in their own way and end up a tangle of resentments, anger and emotional pain. There are too many automatic thoughts and learned emotional responses that cloud a person’s ability to perform effectively in a relationship.
My suggestion to counteract this is for people to:
- Clear the mind of cognitive distortions and negative emotions
- Don’t assume another person’s motivation
- Practice effective skills to the point of complete mastery
- Relax, take a breath, slow down
You can purchase “Zen and the Art of Archery” here:
Zen in the Art of Archery
Today I completed a new “white paper” (a small eBook basically) that explains the five common mistakes made by supporters of people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). It is available for download at no cost by clicking on the link below:
Five-common-mistakes-by-non-bpd
Enjoy and feel free to share with others.
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.
Here’s an interesting article about Victim Identity and Emotional Abuse…. The original is here.
The Line between Victims and Abusers
Steven Stosny
Created May 15 2009 – 6:52am
Victim identity is focus on damages suffered at the hands of other people. The desire to be identified as a victim creates a sense of entitlement and a motive to devalue anyone who does not offer special recognition and validation of victim status or compensation for it.
In our Age of Entitlement, it is often difficult for friends and therapists to detect abuse in intimate relationships and to discern who the primary abuser is. This is especially hard in cases of emotional abuse, with no objective evidence like police reports or medical records. The following characteristics of primary abusers and victims are not fool-proof, but I have found them to be highly reliable, based on the dramatic change of attitudes by the end of treatment.
Research and clinical experience clearly indicates that abusers are likely to:
• Underreport, hide, minimize, or justify their abusive behavior
• Describe themselves as victims
• Feel abused when their partners disagree with them or don’t do what they want
• Label their partners’ behavior as abusive
• Attribute malevolent intent to their partners’ positive behavior (manipulative, deceptive)
• Pathologize their partners (emotional or personality disorder, incompetence)
• Use negative labels (nag, irrational, hysterical, lazy, unreliable)
• Have great difficulty describing their partners’ perspectives
• Show little or no compassion
• Exhibit self-righteousness
Research and clinical evidence traditionally has shown that victims were likely to:
• Underreport or hide their partners’ abusive behavior
• Not label obviously abusive behavior as abuse
• Blame themselves in part for the abuse they reveal
• Make excuses for the abuser’s behavior
• Bend over backwards to see the abuser’s perspective
• Describe the abuser at least partially in sympathetic terms
• Exhibit self-doubt
How the line got blurred: Emotional Reactivity and the Victim Identity Movement
Abuse victims, like anyone in relationships with high emotional reactivity, build automatic defense systems [1], which include preemptive strikes – if you expect to be criticized, stonewalled, or demeaned, you may well do it first. Victims can easily develop a reactive narcissism that makes seem like abusers.
But emotional reactivity between intimate partners, although more frequent in the Age of Entitlement, is a small part of the story. A more potent variable in blurring the line between victim and abuser is the reactivity of a social movement.
The victim protection movement began as a noble attempt to counteract the most insidious aspect of the abusive dynamic – blaming the victim, which has the effect of making the victim feel ashamed of being abused. But as is the case with all effective social movements, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. We now have a victim identity movement, fueled by an industry of self-help authors and advocates, that has conferred a certain status to being a victim and thereby blurred the line between victims and abusers.
For example, in the beginning of my career, I saw many male abuse victims who would become angry and verbally aggressive at the suggestion that their partners abused them. Now obvious victims, along with those who are not victims but who have identified with descriptions in self-help books, become angry and aggressive if they are not recognized as victims.
The primary mistake with victims is urging them to think and sound like abusers. Due to the victim identity movement, some genuine victims will now:
• Describe their partners as abusive
• Minimize or justifying their own aggressive behavior
• Dismiss their partners’ perspective
• Attribute malevolent intent to their partners’ positive behavior
• Use negative labels (selfish, controlling, pig)
• Pathologize their partners
• Exhibit self-righteousness
• Show no compassion
The primary mistake with abusers is to reinforce their victim-identity by:
• Emphasizing childhood or other experiences in which they were mistreated
• Validating their resentment and anger as “appropriate,” which validates the distorted perspectives that go with anger and resentment
• Reinforcing their sense of entitlement – they should be respected, which, to them, means their partners must submit
• Confronting them in shame-inducing ways, before they learn to regulate shame with compassion
Successful Treatment and Friendly Support of Victims
No treatment or support of victims can be successful by urging them to disown their compassionate nature and think more like abusers. Rather, treatment should attempt to build on their strengths, i.e., expand the good things about their nature in a way that ensures safety and growth. A deeper level compassion helps them see the damage an abuser does to the self by harming loved ones. Then they can leave compassionately, for the abuser’s own good. This is a far more empowering stance that will feel more authentic, avoid residual bitterness that adversely affects parenting, and be less likely to stir revenge from an abuser who feels humiliated by separation. And it will not create a pendulum of pain [2], in which victims leave out of anger and resentment only to return out of guilt and shame.
Successful Treatment and Friendly Support of Abusers
Abusers must access the natural state of compassion they first experienced as very young children and relived when they were falling in love. Most will then recognize that they have fundamental values that are more important to them than their egos and that their egos were constructed in large part as defense against the shame of violating or losing touch with those values. Motivated by defense of ego, they violate their deepest values and devalue those they love. Motivated by their deepest values, their need to defend a fragile ego subsides, along with their need to control, criticize, dominate, and devalue others. (Boot camp post [3])
Notice that appeal to the deepest values of clients and friends makes the distinction between abusers and victims less important. A compassionate victim, knowing that the abuser cannot change without becoming more compassionate, will leave. An abuser who becomes more compassionate cannot continue to abuse.
Occasionally, a discussion on my private email list that I feel it would be helpful to share here. I only do it if the discussion is not personal in nature. This discussion is about proper application of the skills in WHINE and how they compare to DBT skills. My list member’s question/comments are indented… my responses are not.
Now I have some time to answer these questions and the ones you ask in a later post. Let me start with these.
Thanks again Bon. Now I am re-examining how best to communicate. I
have a bunch of things I have been thinking about WHINE that I wanted
to ask you about:
WHINE is not perfect. It was my best effort at the time and continues to evolve. But I think I put in WHINE what was most effective for ME, as opposed to using DBT skills by rote. I had to adapt them beyond what I learned in DBT-FST class.
- You describe a modification of DEAR (using different words) as a
tool for the non. Do you just see the rest of the acronym as not as
relevant for the non?
That’s a good question. Actually, I think the MAN part of the skill IS applicable to the non. Although it is intended to be a skill for BPs to use to have an effective conversation and ask for what they want. I believe the DEAR is the WHAT to do and the MAN is the HOW to do it.
M – mindfully (ignore distractions and stay on subject)
A – appear confident
N – negotiate
However, in the case of the non, I adapted the tool to make it about the non’s feelings, rather than about asking for what you want. What you are asking for in my version is for a behavior change that would improve your feelings. I think that what nons have to do is become more aware of emotions – both theirs and their BP’s – and become less dependent on rational argument. If you talk about desires in the communication, you might be likely to lean on rational arguments. I tried to craft the tool such that it would “meet in the middle” with a BP. You see, when you start such a conversation, your wife will immediately start to feel judged. She will fear that you are creating “boundaries” (really behavioral rules) for her and that HURTS her. If you make it about your feelings more so than her behavior, then she can’t argue with you – see below for more on that. She also finds that the conversation will not hurt as much. When you talk to her about something “important to you” she’s going to feel dread that you’re going to judge, reject and shame her.
- You discuss these modified DEAR tools in your “Inserting your
feelings” section, which is separate from your discussion of
“examining the consequences” and “facilitating problem-solving” (which
you include as parts of validation). But I think each of these are
useful for communicating to a BPD beyond validation and attempting to
elicit behavior that you would prefer to see.
The examining the consequences and facilitating problem-solving is to encourage more effective future behavior in her. You do that when ineffective behavior has arisen as a result of an EDM. It should be done in a GIVE kind of way. “Gentle, Interested, Validating, Easy Manner”. That is the HOW. What I have provided is the WHAT to do. Inserting your feelings is a way of soliciting some sympathy/empathy from your BP – it is about YOU. The complex validation technique (steps 1-6) are about HER – IAAHF. Inserting your feelings is a way to make it IAABOYF (it’s all about both of your feelings). I think one must build trust with validation and, if possible, facilitate effective behavior in HER. Both skills are important, but they have different goals. Obviously, they can be used in conjunction (and I put a conversation in WHINE in which both skills are used).
- Also, the I-AM-MAD tool seems to be a summary of the validation
tool, and does not include the “inserting your feelings” tool (but it
does include “examining the consequences” and “facilitating problem-
solving”–am I right?
Yes, the I-AM-MAD tool is a sub-set/summary of the six step validation technique.
- You say that if we state “I feel ____”, then there is nothing for
the BP to argue with because this is a non-judgmental statement. But
my wife consistently tells people what they should and should not
feel. And I really expect that she’ll feel judged by this because she
thinks in terms of blame–she’ll assume I mean that it is her fault
that I feel that way. Of course I can clarify, but my point is that I
will probably *have* to clarify.
Clarify by using normalization statements about your own feelings. I do state that you can’t be argued with and I still believe it. If I say “I feel angry” the only thing that can be argued with or thought to be judgmental is WHY I feel angry – the fact that I DO feel angry can’t be argued with – it is a statement of an internal feeling. She might expect blame and judgment – but that is why I broke the tool up into the different steps. People with BPD understand emotions. She will know how it feels to feel angry, sad, frustrated, scared, etc. Talking to a person with BPD on an emotional level is one that they will instinctively understand. One has to be careful not to have “weasel words” in your statements that indicate judgment. Even better is if you don’t actually judge the person at all, just state what happened. The “inserting your feelings” tool is like a reverse of the validation tool. It is to work on your feelings, not theirs.
- DEAR includes reinforcement–we can say that if they do change or
adopt the behavior, then there will be benefits (or negative
consequences, I suppose). But you changed reinforcement to “thank you
if they choose to do what you want” and your example says, “this will
definitely make me feel less ____.” I don’t really understand why my
wife would be motivated to change her behavior because of how I feel.
This is the last thing on her mind.
I disagree with that. I think that if your show appreciation for a commitment to change behavior that makes a BP think that they are being thoughtful and appreciative/appreciated. A person with BPD LIKES (desperately sometimes) to be liked, apprecaited and wanted. If you can navigate that tool without judgment, I suspect your wife will feel relieved that it wasn’t a dreadful statement of “thou shalt” from you to her. Also, I think “negative consequences” is not reinforcement – it is the threat of punishment. There is an implied positive consquence that you will feel better and thus treat her better – when someone is angry and frustrated they are unlikely to treat another person very well. The problem with real reinforcement at that moment is that reinforcement must occur when the desired behavior is performed (as I say in the reinforcement section) and your wife is not performing the behavior, just committing to perform it in the future.
 I have a list member who is a big fan of Al Turtle. Mr. Turtle (great name BTW) is a relationship consultant, not specifically dealing with BPD, but in relationships in general. What I found out through this list member is that Mr. Turtle and I came to the same conclusion about a certain experience. This experience is the “safe” and “unsafe” experience. While I deal with this on the BPD level, Mr. Turtle does so in general – and he calls the “lizard” of a person. The lizard is the emotional brain of an individual. Because it’s the primitive brain, it is lizard-like. I personally can’t go with the idea of the lizard – it’s just too cheesy for me. However, the idea of emotional safety is important to me. Mr. Turtle and I have come to the idea of safety versus insecurity to the same conclusion with different means. I have been considering this idea with respect to BPD. What I found was that, when feeling unsafe, a BP will be faced with four choices: run away, attack, submit or ruminate silently. What was pointed out to me was the opposite to the feeling of insecurity. That is the idea of safety. Most BP’s don’t feel safe most of the time… but sometimes they do. When they are feeling safe, they have four choices as well (thanks, Al Turtle and my list member!). Those choices are: mate, play, nurture and create.
When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds!
|
Loading ...