Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. Mentalization and BPD
3. How mentalization and attachment might explain “high-functioning” BPD

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• Psychic Equivalence – when the world is equivalent to the person’s mind. This is the “feelings = facts” mode. “If I feel sad, there must be someone/something that made me sad.”
• Pretend – mental states are not anchored in reality. Pretending “as if” something is true, when external evidence shows the contrary. This is “bullshitting” mode.
• Teleological – mental states can only be expressed in action. “If you loved me, you’d buy me a car.” Only tangible actions count, not words or thoughts.

In addition, there are other ways of thinking that inhibit mentalization such as:

Concrete thinking – “But he said he hated me!” Taking something as gospel and ignoring the underlying mental states and their malleability.

Pseudo-mentalizing – seemingly understanding of mental states, but used in a self-serving fashion.

What do you do when the failure to mentalize happens? When a break in mentalization occurs, you must intervene immediately. You cannot let the break go unnoticed or simply “let it go.” You have to be attentive to the level of mentalization in the conversation and stop the flow of the conversation right away.

Bateman has 3 basic ways of dealing with the break in mentalization, each used for a different intensity of the break. They are:

1. Stop, Listen, Look (for minor cuts, bumps or abrasions).
2. Stop, Rewind, Explore (for breaks, burns and internal injuries).
3. Stop and Stand (for life-and-death struggles and near-fatal injuries)

Huh? What’s up with those?You will notice that “Stop” begins each of these methods. Bateman suggests actually holding up your hand, palm forward in a traffic cop sort of way and saying, “Stop…” (or some variant). This “mentalizing hand” is the “shock to the system” that indicates a hold on further progress to a conversation. It is an indication that you can’t continue the conversation without some sort of clarification of what just happened.

Stop, Listen, Look

This puts the conversation in “pause mode.” It is to remedy a small break in mentalization. It is a reaction to the reaction of the other person. If the person is triggered into an emotion by something that you said, you must stop, listen and look. Some of the ways to do this are:

• “Wait. I’m confused. What I said seemed to have upset you. That wasn’t what I intended. Can you clarify how you feel?”
• “Stop for a minute. You said I was being mean. I didn’t intend for that to be mean, but I guess I was. What do you feel that’s about?”
• “Hold it. You appear to be angry at that. Is that right?”
• “Hang on. I think what I said upset you. Can you help me out here and explain why?”

I know all of this seems rather clunky; however, the purpose of this is two-fold: 1) to get the other person thinking about their thinking (a re-engagement of mentalizing) and 2) to communicate that you are really engaged in the conversation and interested in how the other person is feeling.

Stop, Rewind, Explore

This process is a bit arduous. It requires you to step back through the last few moments of the conversation and explore each, “frame by frame.”

• “Let’s go back and explore what happened just then. It seemed to me we were relating well and then something happened. What do you feel happened?”
• “Something happened just now. Let’s try and rewind a bit to see where the conversation went astray, alright?”
• “Hang on a second. I feel like my intention and the way you felt about what I said are not in synch. Let’s go back and see what happened.”
• “Wait. There appears to have been a misunderstanding a moment or so ago. What do you feel about what I said?”Then, you have to go forward, step-by-step, statement-by-statement and explore each one and see how those made the other person feel.
• “So, I said, ‘maybe he was just tired’ and you felt I was being dismissive of your feelings? Is that right?”
• “You said that you didn’t want to talk about it and I continued. You felt badgered, correct?”
• “When I started talking about our daughter, you felt I wasn’t being attentive to your feelings. Do I have that right?”

Stop and Stand

This process is for the big problems. It is the way that you apply your own personal boundaries to a situation. When the other person is way down the path of emotional dysregulation, stop and stand can be the only option. It is basically your way of either ending the conversation or trying to re-frame it completely.

• “As far as I can tell, we are going around in circles about this. I don’t see any point and continuing to talk about it.”
• “I feel we have reached an impasse. You have your view and I have mine. I don’t think going back and forth will do either of us any good.”
• “I can’t really discuss this anymore right now. Maybe we could discuss it again in the morning.”
• “I can’t listen to you when you’re drunk. Let’s talk about this later.”

Remember: like any application of boundaries, this one is likely to cause an immediate strong reaction, but the “stand” part is that you have to stand your ground.

This content is based solely on my interpretation of mentalization skills.

Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. Mentalization and BPD
3. The Implicit/Explicit Connection

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Basically, mentalization is the connection of mind to mind in a particular exchange. It is about in-the-moment interaction, not about the past or future. It is about communicating and understanding your and the other person’s explicit and implicit expressions and motivations, feelings, goals, etc. It is about accurately expressing yourself and listening to the other person in a search for meaning. It is about internalizing the other’s viewpoint and having the other internalize your viewpoint. A really good example of mentalizing is an inside joke – both you and the other person completely understand the meaning of the joke and have internalized the meaning.

Jerry Holmes, a researcher that works with Anthony Bateman (a co-creator of mentalization therapy), calls mentalization the process of “seeing yourself from the outside and others from the inside.”

Why mentalize?

We mentalize for several reasons. The main one is that mentalization is a “meeting of the minds” in which a personal connection is made. Mentalization encourages the integration of thoughts, desires, feelings, motivations, intentions, goals and all other internal mental elements and the communication and understanding of the same in others. When we mentalize, we are out of “lizard brain” thinking and into the prefrontal cortex. That requires the reflection upon meaning and discourages emotional dysregulation, concrete thinking, bullshitting, dismissive attitudes, blaming and IAAHF.

Mentalization serves to:

• Improve trust – others feel that you “get them.”
• Improves communication between two people – the meaning is exchanged.
• Builds empathy and compassion – you can see the world through the other’s eyes.
• Help work on a relationship – people take responsibility for feelings, words, and mental processes.
• Decrease misunderstanding and resentment – understanding other person’s intent.
• Change viewpoints and assumptions – when alternative meaning is applied to situations, beliefs and assumptions can change.

How does one mentalize?

It is important to remember that mentalization is about NOW. It is not about any other moment than now. Therefore, if you are dragging old issues or future worries into the conversation (or if the other person is) then you are experiencing a “failure to mentalize.”

You mentalize by continually monitoring the progress and state of a conversation. You mentalize by asking questions about the current conversation, the feelings and intention of the other person and monitoring your own feelings and understanding of the current conversation. It is a natural skill and is built into the human mind; however, it is also a difficult skill, because we are often not mindful of the current moment when having a conversation. We are often distracted by our own thoughts and feelings, assumptions and automatic thoughts, history and attachment to the other person. If your mind meanders into these things, you are experiencing a failure to mentalize.

Mentalization is done from a “stance,” which is summarized as follows:

• Compassionate for yourself and the other person
• Focus on the other person’s mind
• Humble about your viewpoint and not bullying
• Curious and interested, an authentic desire to see the other person’s point of view
• Validating for additional information about inner mental states (before offering alternative perspectives)
• Normalizing and generalizing – “everyone makes sense (to themselves) at all times”

Mentalization is the true essence of love, compassion and understanding, because it allows you to internalize the authentic “image” of the other person’s mind (and they can yours as well).

Mentalization is essentially done through asking questions, but not leading questions. One cannot ASSUME the other person’s thoughts and feelings are what you think they are. You have to start with a blank slate each time. You can “read” momentary feelings (such as recognizing micro-expressions) but the MEANING of those feelings is not always clear.

If you don’t know, you have to ask.

You ask by being “dumb” and not assuming. For example:

• “I’m not sure I understand. Can you help me out and explain how you feel?”
• “Why do you think he said that?”
• “What happened?”
• “How did you feel about that?”
• “That’d make me feel sad. Do you feel sad about it too?”
• “What do you think was up with that?”
• “Could you tell me more about that?”
• “Really? That wasn’t my intention. Perhaps we could talk about that more?”
• “I wonder if…” statements

The purpose is to probe the other person’s mind and to get as close to a full understanding of the other person’s internal mental processes as possible. It is impossible without a true interest in the other person. It is impossible if you judge the other person, or if you get in your own way, entangled in your own mental processes.

Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. Mentalization and BPD
3. The Implicit/Explicit Connection

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An article from psychcentral about a study indicating that social problems in teens can lead to personality disorders:

Social Problems in Teens Can Lead to Personality Disorders

By Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on September 29, 2011

A new research study looks at how adolescents think, how disordered thinking can take root, and how this thought pattern can ultimately lead to an adult personality disorder.

The study examines the relationship between borderline personality disorder (BPD) traits and “hypermentalizing” in adolescents. Mentalizing is the social intelligence that refers to the ability to infer and attribute thoughts and feelings to understand and predict another person’s behavior.

Dr. Carla Sharp, psychologist at the University of Houston (UH) and lead researcher, believes the results of the data can be used for early intervention, treatment, and identification, of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in adolescents.

This includes improved treatment strategies — such as putting the brakes on “hypermentalizing” — and encouraging a BPD patient to stick to the facts.

“Why does someone with borderline personality disorder key a car, if doing so will not lead to good consequences? What compels her to make that decision?” Sharp said.

“I am trying to understand the development of the disorder and what happens in the brain, and what happens in the minds of these children as they develop to put them on a different trajectory compared to their peers.

“Borderline personality disorder is a condition in which people have long-term patterns of unstable or turbulent emotions about themselves and others. These inner experiences often cause them to take impulsive actions and have chaotic relationships.

“The criteria for BPD includes: excessive anger, affective instability, a clear pattern of self-harm over two years – burning, cutting, suicide attempts, abandonment fears, relationship problems, significant impulsivity – drinking alcohol, drug abuse, eating, anorexia, overeating and illegal activities.

“Clinicians have been reluctant to diagnose BPD in adolescence because there is the notion that personality is not fully developed in childhood and adolescence. We know that the brain is only fully developed by age 25, so how can we diagnose a personality disorder in someone if they don’t have a fully developed brain yet?” said Sharp.

“On the one hand, we are finding in our research that kids do have a stable pattern of interaction with others. Parents will describe their kids to you in terms that remain stable over time.

“Therefore, personality researchers have highlighted the point that teens do not wake up at 19 and have a personality disorder on the first day of their 19th year, so there must be some precursors to the disorders. There’s been a group of people, including myself, advocating that we not necessarily diagnose borderline personality disorder in adolescence, but that we assess for it to make sure that we don’t miss these children.”

The study spanned a two-year period and included 111 adolescent inpatients between the ages of 12 to 17.

A key component was the use of a new tool to assess social cognition in children. The tool is called the Movie for the Assessment of Cognition (MASC) and is used alongside self-report measures of emotion regulation and psychopathology.

In the study, research subjects were presented with actual movie scenes. They were introduced to the characters in the movie: Sandra, Michael, Betty and Cliff, by showing a photo of each. They were instructed to watch the 15-minute film carefully to understand what the characters are feeling and thinking.

They are then asked what the character in the movie might be feeling or thinking, with four options to choose from, forcing a single response prompt for one of the following categories: no mentalizing, less mentalizing, hypermentalizing or accurate mentalization.

Researchers found that 23 percent of the adolescents in the inpatient setting met the criteria for BPD. The young adults who met criteria for BPD had a higher frequency of these overmentalizing responses.

The study also found hypermentalizing interacted with emotional regulation. The individuals with BPD misread people’s thoughts, upsetting the adolescent and disrupting emotional regulation which can lead to an increase in borderline personality disorder symptoms.

“This research study is groundbreaking in that it’s the first to provide empirical evidence of the link between BPD and mentalizing in adolescents. By identifying precursors and treating BPD early in adolescence, we can use validated treatments to help these children,” Sharp said.

“The danger of not recognizing precursors of BPD in adolescents is that it can lead to years of confusion and pain for family members and the individual with misdiagnosis and lack of appropriate treatment. These families often go through years of assessment, and people might think it’s bipolar disorder, depression, conduct disorder or comorbidity.”

They are often relieved when they get to their mid-’20s and get to the right treatment facility that can actually diagnosis them and give a name to the cluster of symptoms they’ve been experiencing for so long, Sharp said.

“The next step is to try to do this work while neuroimaging the teen’s brain, so that we can look at the biological correlates of this. Such research could potentially lead to pharmacological intervention in addition to the talk therapy,” she said.

Source: University of Houston

APA Reference
Nauert PhD, R. (2011). Social Problems in Teens Can Lead to Personality Disorders. Psych Central. Retrieved on October 4, 2011, from http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/29/social-problems-in-teens-can-lead-to-personality-disorders/29893.html

Related posts:

1. DSM-V Changes to Personality Disorders
2. Study Illuminates the Pain of Social Rejection
3. It’s time to reject the notion that people with personality disorders are beyond help

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Lemonsky had to wait until her late twenties even to be given a name for the condition that left every aspect of her life in disarray. Then, after one of her suicide attempts came perilously close to succeeding, a concerned doctor got her an appointment with Anthony Bateman at St Ann’s Hospital in London.

Bateman’s unit specialises in treating personality disorders, but Lemonsky didn’t realise that until, sitting in his office, she pleaded for an explanation of her problems. “He said: ‘It’s borderline personality disorder.’ I said: ‘Is it treatable?’ He said: ‘Yes.’”

This simple yet optimistic exchange will surprise many people who have been given the same diagnosis. It may even surprise some psychiatrists. Personality disorders revolve around difficulties interacting with other people. They can be extremely debilitating to those with the condition and those around them, and have been thought to be lifelong afflictions. Borderline personality disorder, in particular, has a terrible reputation, summed up on a cover of Time magazine as “The disorder that doctors fear most.” Even the current edition of psychiatry’s handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), perpetuates the gloom by describing personality disorders as “stable and enduring”.

“It turns out that it’s not true,” says John Oldham, a specialist in personality disorders at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and president of the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM. For despairing families, the encouraging news is that the problems of people with borderline personality disorder subside with age. Recent clinical trials have also shown that specialised psychotherapy can significantly improve their lives. Still, a lingering “untreatable” stigma, combined with the difficulty of securing funding for therapy, means that relatively few people with the condition get the help they need.

The encouraging results for borderline personality have kindled hope that other forms of personality disorder? – which are collectively more common but poorly studied? – might also be less ingrained and more amenable to treatment than thought.

Psychiatrists currently recognise 10 personality disorders, classified into three “clusters”? – though the constellation of conditions is mired in diagnostic confusion (see “What’s in a name?”, page 48 ). The disorders manifest in diverse ways, from the callous disregard of others typical of those with antisocial personality disorder?- many of whom pursue a life of crime?- to the extreme social anxiety of people with avoidant personality disorder. Problems interacting with others are the common thread. “You can’t have a personality disorder on a desert island,” observes Conor Duggan, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Nottingham in the UK.

Borderline personality disorder, which is characterised by extreme emotional instability, is the best studied because the people that have it are aware something is badly wrong and tend to seek help. Anyone familiar with the condition knows that “borderline” doesn’t mean that people with this diagnosis are close to the boundary between mental health and mental illness. Far from it: the disorder got its name because it seemed to combine the distress of neurosis with some of the delusions of psychosis.

At the core of the disorder lies an inability to form stable relationships. People with borderline personality have an almost paranoid fear of abandonment, which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Friends may be idolised one day only to be despised the next after a perceived slight. Angry outbursts are frequent, and people who try to help often bear the brunt.

“These are patients who don’t trust you. They are highly vigilant and quick to misinterpret things,” says Oldham. “A lot of healthcare workers don’t understand that it’s part of the pathology and take it personally.”

Road to recovery

The first study, led by Mary Zanarini of the McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, reported last year that 86 per cent of 249 patients had improved to the point that they no longer met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality for at least four years within the 10 years of follow up (American Journal of Psychiatry, vol 167, p 663).

This result was no fluke: in April this year a second study, which set a higher bar for judging remission, reported that 85 per cent of 111 patients had remitted for at least a year over a 10-year period (Archives of General Psychiatry, vol 68, p 827).

“I’ve been immersed with these patients and I didn’t anticipate it,” says John Gunderson, also at the McLean Hospital and one of the leaders of the second study. He says that psychiatrists simply failed to realise that many people who stopped turning up for therapy were actually getting better.

Given the suffering of people with borderline personality and their families, finding ways to accelerate recovery is a top priority. Although some progress has been made in understanding the condition’s biological basis (see Inside the borderline mind, page 47), the pharmacological revolution that dominates modern psychiatry has stalled in the case of borderline personality. Antipsychotic drugs or mood stabilisers can help lessen some symptoms, but last year a systematic review of clinical trials concluded that such drugs make little difference to the disorder’s overall severity.

Another successful approach is mentalisation-based treatment, pioneered by Bateman and Peter Fonagy at University College London. MBT comes from the tradition of psychoanalysis, and concentrates on getting people with borderline personality to better understand their own and others’ mental states. It has been less widely studied, but seems to reduce suicide attempts and the use of psychiatric services, while increasing people’s ability to hold down a job.

For Lemonsky, who had found previous therapists dismissive of what seemed to them trivial issues, the last aspect was a revelation. “Whatever I said was treated with the utmost importance,” she says of her experience in Bateman’s clinic.

Related posts:

1. Interesting Article from Time Magazine on BPD
2. Major changes in the DSM for personality disorders
3. Brain imaging gives new insight into mental disorders

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A: Unless your borderline loved one is a minor or you have a court order, you can’t force anyone into therapy. Therapy must be a choice of the person that needs it. It will probably be much more effective if the person with BPD chooses to go to therapy. Yet, therapy is not like sending your car in for repairs. It’s not as if you send the person in to therapy, he/she gets a new part and comes out fixed. That’s not the way therapy works.

For BPD, the “gold standard” of therapy is Dialectic Behavior Therapy (DBT). It is an “evidence-based” treatment – meaning the therapy has been researched against “therapy as usual” (TAU) and been shown to be more effective than TAU. However, DBT is generally measured on reducing suicidal impulses and self-harm. DBT has been criticized for being most effective with the “lowest functioning” people with BPD. I personally like DBT in that it provides the borderline with essential skills that can make their lives more effective. DBT usually takes at least a year. It took my daughter two years to complete. For more on DBT from this blog, click here. It is also important to note that, in many circumstances, the family members can be more effective if they participate in the DBT treatment by learning the necessary skills to support the treatment.

Recently, a new treatment called Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) has come on to the scene – particularly in the UK. I only know of two places in the US that MBT is available. Mentalization-based therapy focusing on the skill of “mentalizing” and is an interactive therapy in which the moment-to-moment relationship between the client and the therapist helps encourage critical, integrative thinking. Mentalizing is a process and it requires participation of each person in a particular conversation. One must try to see the world through the other’s eyes and clearly express one’s own mental aspects including intent, desire, motivation, feelings and aspirations. For more on MBT on this blog, click here.

There are other therapies that can be effective with BPD including schema-focused therapy, STEPPS and transference-focused therapy.

Both DBT and MBT are quite expensive at this time.

Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Radical Acceptance
3. Ask Bon: How do I get my loved one with BPD to go to therapy?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. A Daughter with BPD who Lies
2. Wise Mind and DBT
3. Anti-social Personality Disorder mistaken for BPD – when people get it wrong

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“…BPD is present in about 6% of primary care patients and persons in community-based samples and in 15 to 20% of patients in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics,” writes John G. Gunderson, MD, from the Psychosocial and Personality Research Program, McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts. “Patients with BPD usually enter treatment facilities after suicide attempts or after episodes of deliberate self-injury. Such episodes result in an average hospital stay of 6.3 days per year and nearly 1 emergency room visit every 2 years, rates that are 6 to 12 times those among patients with a major depressive disorder.”

As you can see BPD has a major financial impact on the health care system, not to mention the distress for the patients and their families.

When reviewing the various treatment options, the author says this about mentalization therapy:

Mentalization-based therapy is a cognitive or psychodynamic therapy including individual as well as group therapy. While assuming a “not-knowing” stance, the therapist insists that the patient “mentalize,” or examine and label his or her own experiences and those of others. This emphasis on thinking before reacting may be a process central to all effective therapies.

That “not-knowing” stance is what I tell the nons that I know: Be a detective, not a judge.

Related posts:

1. Dutch Study Shows Promise
2. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
3. Heather Locklear checks into in-patient facility

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Mind Reading: Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen on Empathy and the Science of Evil
By MAIA SZALAVITZ Monday, May 30, 2011

Cambridge psychology professor and leading autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen is best known for studying the theory that a key problem in autistic disorders is “mind blindness,” difficulty understanding the thoughts, feelings and intentions of others. He’s also known for positing the “extreme male brain” concept of autism, which suggests that exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb can cause the brain to focus on systematic knowledge and patterns more than on emotions and connection with others. (Oh, and yes, he’s also the cousin of British comedian Sacha “Borat” Baron Cohen.)

Baron-Cohen’s new book, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, examines the role of empathy, the ability to understand and care about the emotions of others, not only in autism but in conditions like psychopathy in which lack of care for others leads to antisocial and destructive behavior.

What do you mean when you write about “zero negative” empathy?

Zero empathy refers to people at the extremely low end of the scale. They tend to be people with personality disorders, particularly antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). I focus quite a lot on psychopathy [the extreme form of ASPD] and also on two other personality disorders, borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.

The ‘negative’ is meant to be shorthand for this being negative for the individual but also for the people around them. It’s meant to contrast with what I call ‘zero positive’ empathy, which effectively describes the autistic spectrum.

[Autistic people] struggle with empathy just like zero negatives but it seems to be for very different reasons. I’m arguing that their low empathy is a result of a particular cognitive style, which is attentive to details and patterns or rules, which in shorthand, I call systemizing.

If we think about the autism spectrum as involving a very strong drive to systemize, that can have very positive consequences for the individual and for society. The downside is that when you try to systemize certain parts of the world like people and emotions, those sorts of phenomena are less lawful and harder to systemize. That can lead to having low empathy, almost like a byproduct of strong systemizing.

How do you account for people who are both highly empathetic and highly systematic, such as some of those with Asperger’s who are actually oversensitive to the emotions of others?

I’ve certainly come across subgroups like that. There are people with Asperger’s whom I’ve met who certainly would be very upset to learn they’d hurt another person’s feelings. They often have very strong moral consciences and moral codes. They care about not hurting people. They may not always be aware [that they've said something rude or hurtful], but if it’s pointed out, they would want to do something about it.

The other side of their moral sense is that they often have a strong sense of justice or fairness. They may have arrived at it through looking for logical patterns rather than necessarily because they can easily identify with someone, however.

People often think that autistic people are dangerous, like psychopaths, when they hear this idea that they have “no empathy.”

In a way, that was one of my motivations for writing the book. Low empathy is a characteristic of many different conditions or disorders. Often books are written where they either focus on psychopathy or autism but [not both].

We have to look at them side by side, and when we do that, we see that they are very different and it’s important to bring that out.

Is it the case, then, that autistic people are not good at the “mind reading” part of empathy, in terms of predicting people’s behavior and feelings, while psychopaths are able to do that but are not able to care?

I think the contrast between these two conditions provides some evidence for that dissociation within empathy. People with psychopathy are very good at reading the minds of their victims. That’s probably most clearly seen in deception. You have to be good at mind reading before it would even occur to you want [to deceive someone]. So you can see the cognitive part of empathy as functioning very well, but the fact that they don’t have the appropriate emotional response to someone else’s state of mind, the feeling of wanting to alleviate distress if someone’s in pain, [that suggests that] the affective part of empathy is not functioning normally.

What stunts the development of empathy in personality disorders?

In the book, I explore both early environmental factors and biological and genetic factors. I think it’s particularly clear in borderline personality disorder (BPD) that there’s a strong association between early environmental deprivation and neglect and abuse and later outcome of BPD. There’s an association [with abuse and trauma early in life] in psychopathy, but it’s not strong as in BPD.

What defines borderline personality disorder?

There seems to be quite a lot of difficulty in self-regulation, in the regulation of their own emotional state. A lot of people with BPD also have depression. Many are suicidal. Many have had a history of feeling attacked or uncared for’ they are almost hypersensitive to possible threats from others.

They react almost with a hair trigger — if they perceive they are being attacked, they go on the attack. People with BPD can be so preoccupied by their own sense of not being cared for and not being understood that they can become blind to the impact of their own behavior on others.

So how would you address increasing empathy in these conditions?

There are interesting and imaginative new approaches to treatment for empathy. Some are medications like oxytocin. Some are psychological treatments like Peter Fonagy’s work on mentalization therapy. I haven’t ever watched it done but the idea is to encourage the patient to stop and think about others’ thoughts and feelings. It’s particularly useful for BPD. When someone with that condition is mostly focusing on themselves, the therapist prompts them to take other people’s perspectives. And just through repetition and practice, people get better and better.

I don’t see how that would work with psychopaths.

People are doing some clinical approaches with psychopaths too, like getting them to meet their victims. That’s obviously got lots of traumatic risk attached to it [for the victim], but again, it’s an exercise in perspective-taking.

I think if we take seriously the idea that behavior is the result of the brain — that having low empathy [is] the result of the way the empathy circuit is functioning or has developed — it does raise moral questions. When someone is acting with low empathy, why do we judge them as bad and punish them? It does shift the locus of where [they should be treated] philosophically, from the criminal justice system to health care.

Don’t you think there are people who are actually evil, who know what they’re doing is wrong and harmful but choose to do it anyway?

I argue in the book that I don’t find the term evil very useful. Once you are down at zero degrees of empathy, all kinds of behavior become possible. I don’t find it scientifically useful to use that term. Empathy is a scientific term in a way that evil isn’t. You can try to localize it in the brain; you can look for which part of brain is activated. It’s normative behavior. Evil is kind of the opposite of good, I guess, but empathy, as we were talking earlier, is quantifiable and normal. You can measure it and look for it, whereas you don’t see evil in the brain.

It’s argued that humans were able to evolve cooperation and altruism only by having a way to detect and punish those who didn’t cooperate.

I could see an evolutionary benefit for both empathy and lack of empathy too. Low empathy allows you to act selfishly, which could be in your interest, but high empathy fosters social cohesion and it’s good for the individual to end up as part of a social network.

I speculate that maybe most people end up in the middle, which may be the optimal position. It’s good to have some empathy, so at the very least you avoid offending or inadvertently hurting someone, but too much empathy might mean never completing your own projects.

How does your cousin Sacha Baron Cohen, creator of Borat, rate on empathy? His work can really make you cringe, but he must be excellent at mind reading to do it.

First of all, he and I have a family agreement that we don’t talk about each other. I respect his work. I think that sometimes that kind of comedy can create what you called a “cringe reaction,” cringing with embarrassment, but that has a purpose.

Why does empathy seem especially lacking in the teen years?

It’s kind of interesting that parents comment on adolescence as being a low point in empathy. But there’s still quite a lot of maturation going on in the part of the brain that involves empathy during that period. There could also be hormonal factors, particularly in males with the increase in testosterone. That could change empathy levels.

I’m struck that if you look at the “terrible two’s,” kids who have tantrums when they don’t get their way, and teens, at one level it looks like very little development has gone on. There’s a transition at around age four to becoming able to apprehend that others have different perspectives. You would imagine that empathy would almost reach a peak in early childhood, but it seems to have a long protracted development.

It seems to me that the terrible twos and adolescence are both the most intense periods of brain development. Could that be why empathy is impaired then?

That’s really interesting. I think brain maturation is one thing and also just the experience of relationships. I think that empathy has to have an environment in which to work, and that environment is relationships. Making mistakes in relationships is all part of learning to empathize.

There was an interesting study I was part of. Women who took extra testosterone were given the ‘reading the mind in eyes test.’ [The test measures how well people can read others' emotions by looking at their eyes.] A dose of testosterone lowered scores on this test. It was one of the first demonstrations that changing testosterone levels affects your empathy.

If you’re taking an evolutionary approach, it might be very adaptive if you have to use aggression for self-defense. You’d be more effective if you didn’t have empathy getting in the way.

A U.S. doctor tried to treat autism by lowering testosterone levels, citing your work as justification, although he actually didn’t get the research right. He just lost his license because he was using a “chemical castration” drug on kids to do this.

We haven’t considering [lowering testosterone] as a treatment to study for autism. I’m not comfortable with it ethically in terms of side effects. They misquoted [our research], and cited it as evidence that there was elevated testosterone in autism when, in fact, we haven’t shown that. They presented it as if we’re endorsing it, which I’m certainly not.

See more of Healthland’s “Mind Reading” series.

Find this article at:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/30/mind-reading-psychologist-simon-baron-cohen-on-empathy-and-the-science-of-evil/

You can buy to book here:

See larger image The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty (Hardcover) By (author) Simon Baron-Cohen List Price: $25.99 USD New From: $13.92 In Stock Used from: $9.88 In Stock

Related posts:

1. Are Borderlines Evil?
2. Amazing new study on BPD from Science Magazine
3. Nice Article about Empathy and Coping with BPD

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

IATROGENESIS, PSYCHOTHERAPY AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER

Pharmacological studies routinely explore the potential harm that a well-intentioned treatment may cause. In the case of psychosocial treatments we all too readily assume that at worst such treatments are inert. However, there may be particular disorders where psychotherapy represents a significant risk to the patient. Whatever the mechanisms of therapeutic change might be, traditional psychotherapeutic approaches depend for their effectiveness on the capacity of the individual to consider their experience of their own mental state alongside its re-presentation by the psychotherapist. The appreciation of the difference between one’s own experience of one’s mind and that presented by another person is key. It is the integration of one’s current experience of mind with the alternative view presented by the psychotherapist that must be at the foundation of a change process. The capacity to understand behaviour in terms of the associated mental states in self and other (the capacity to mentalise) is essential for the achievement of this integration.

Most individuals with no major psychological problems are in a relatively strong position to make productive use of an alternative perspective presented by the psychotherapist. However, those who have a very poor appreciation of their own and others’ perception of mind are unlikely to be able to benefit from traditional (particularly insight-oriented) psychological therapies. We have argued that persons with borderline personality disorder have an impoverished model of their own and others’ mental function (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004). Their schematic, rigid, sometimes extreme ideas about their own and others’ states of mind make them vulnerable to powerful emotional storms and apparently impulsive actions, and create profound problems of behavioural and affect regulation. The weaker an individual’s sense of their own subjectivity, the harder it is for them to compare the validity of their own perceptions of the way their mind works with that which a ‘mind expert’ presents. When presented with a coherent view of mental function in the context of psychotherapy, they are not able to compare the picture offered to them with a self-generated model and may all too often accept alternative perspectives uncritically or reject them wholesale.

Any psychological therapy can generate these divergent responses. Both cognitively based and dynamically orientated therapies offer causal explanations for underlying mental states. These can give ready-made answers and provide illusory stability by inducing a process of pseudo-mentalisation in which the patient takes on the explanations without question and makes them his/her own. Conversely, both types of perspective can be summarily and angrily dismissed as overly simplistic and patronising, which in turn fuels a sense of abandonment, feelings of isolation and desperation. Even focusing on how the patient feels can have its dangers. A person who has little capacity to discern the subjective state associated with anger cannot benefit from being told both that they are feeling angry and the underlying cause of that anger. Such an assertion addresses nothing that is known or can be integrated. It can only be accepted as true or rejected outright, but in neither case is it helpful. The dissonance between the patient’s inner experience and the perspective given by the therapist, in the context of feelings of attachment to the therapist, leads to bewilderment which in turn leads to instability as the patient attempts to integrate the different views and experiences. Unsurprisingly, this results in more rather than less mental and behavioural disturbance.

Related posts:

1. Are Borderlines Evil?
2. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
3. Angelina Jolie Tops the List of Searched On Celeb Borderlines

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before I go into this, however, I would like to note something about my (unscientific) polls. I have been told that by certain “experts” in the non-BPD area that this “quiet”, “invisible” or “high functioning” borderline is much MORE common than the (presumably) “loud”, “visible” or “low functioning” borderline. Except… my poll numbers don’t bear that out. I really assumed that these poll numbers would reflect that the “invisible” borderline was more common. However, what my numbers show is that around 75% of borderlines report suicide attempts, substance abuse and self-injury. There seems to be an assumption that there are many, many invisible borderlines, suffering in quiet desperation and known only to their loved ones (and themselves – maybe). I’m not even going to bother to go into the assumption that there are also a large percentage of borderlines with NPD too. Personally, I think this is a fallacy (that there is a large %) and, although there are some for sure (even though my comments reflect that the borderlines feel that these ways of thinking are at opposite spectrums), the skills to effectively interact with someone with BPD and someone with NPD are not the same. I focus on what I think are the vast majority of borderlines – those without NPD.

Now back to the mentalization failures:

Pretend Mode – I believe that this mode is the one in which my commenter was operating often. In pretend mode, you have a sense that you are “faking your way through it” and that you’re pretending “as if” things are ok. This is also the nature of bull-shitting and with BPD, people seem to be able to bullshit their way through about anything, including therapy, relationships, and careers. This mode seems to be the “default state” of the quiet/invisible/high-functioning borderline. However, as evidenced by my commenter, that view of the borderline is from the outside only. From the inside, they feel fake, alien and on the verge of a breakdown and as she says: “I should say the appearance of ‘all is well’ has been going on since then [her in-patient stint]”. It’s all about appearances. For me this can cause the non-BPD to lack compassion for the borderline, because the non-BPD feels that the borderline can “turn it on and off”. What’s missing in the understanding of the non-BPD is the inner view of the borderline which is why in When Hope is Not Enough, I focus on internal features of the disorder (shame, emotional dysregulation and impulsivity).

Psychic Equivalence – this is the “feelings = facts” mode, in which the contents of the borderline’s mind are equivalent with the outside world, other’s thoughts and reality in general. It seems to cause the raging, the paranoid thoughts, the “you’re being mean to me” (on purpose) behavior, and the suspicious behavior, such as stalking, badgering and accusation of affairs, accusations of evilness and “black splitting”. The borderlines that spend a lot of time in psychic equivalence are the aggressive ones (to others). It seems to be the “what if” (in a very negative, “waiting for the other shoe to drop” variety) way of thinking.

Teleological – this is when only physical manifestations of support and soothing matter. Teleological modes seems to manifest in cutting and other forms of self-injury (I bleed so I can stop the hurt), over-deserving behavior (like over-spending, “I deserve a new dress even though I can’t afford it”), and demanding of physical examples of being soothed, such as sex, moving to a new place (“if only I lived in X place, I’d feel better”) and demanding of new things (“if you really loved me, you’d buy me a car”). It causes a very concrete and inflexible way of thinking in which only physical demonstration of self-worth matter.

While each borderline is different and probably spend time in each of these modes, the “default” mode (or conditioned mode) of thinking seems to affect the behavior of the borderline. At least this is what I am postulating regarding the question of “invisible” versus “visible” borderlines. Comments are welcome. For more on modes of thinking (according to me) click here.

Related posts:

1. How mentalization and attachment might explain “high-functioning” BPD
2. The great tree of behavior modification
3. Book Review: Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

See larger image Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder: A Family Guide for Healing and Change (Paperback) By (author) Valerie Porr List Price: $24.95 USD New From: $15.47 In Stock Used from: $11.49 In Stock

Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder by Valerie Porr is perhaps the most up-to-date and complete book for family members of people with BPD published to date. When I read the book, I couldn’t help but think that Ms. Porr had the therapists and mental health professional more in mind than the family members. It appears as though she is trying to dispel many myths about BPD that exist not only in the family environment but also in the mental health community. This book is steeped in scientific research, including research involving the biological under-pinnings of BPD. It includes many skills for family members from both DBT and mentalization based therapy (MBT). Clearly Ms. Porr is highly respected by the clinical community since many of the leading experts in research and practice in BPD treatment have written blurbs for this book. The book is quite dense and a must read for family members of those with BPD. Yet it might not be the best book to start with because of the complexity of the scientific research, the psychoeducational aspects and the technical details about the various therapies for those with BPD. Still, I highly recommend Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder.

Related posts:

1. Princess Di and Borderline Personality Disorder
2. A Review of WHINE by someone with BPD
3. Understanding Major Depression With Borderline Personality Disorder?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Genetics in Borderline Personality Disorder

I was reading an article called “Social cognition in borderline personality disorder: evidence for disturbed recognition of the emotions, thoughts, and intentions of others” and noticed a line in the article that said this: “Thus, in addition to high heritability of BPD (Torgersen et al., 2008), these results argue that environmental factors (e.g., trauma) contribute to disturbed social cognition in BPD. In sum­mary, for the current study we expected PTSD to be a negative predictor of social cognition.” That intrigued me on two levels. One was the “high heritability” part, because often I see comments about BPD and how many people believe that it is mainly caused by childhood trauma (and/or invalidation). In WHINE I state this: As I said earlier, one of the causes of BPD is the “invalidating environment.” Now, it could be that it is not an actual “cause” (and that all the real causes of BPD are biological), but more a reinforcer of BPD. So, the second part of the article that intrigued me was the idea that “we expected PTSD to be a negative predictor of social cognition” – and the discussion and methodology of comorbid PTSD with BPD. What they found was that people with BPD (with or without comorbid PTSD) are less able to understand the intent, thoughts and motivations of social interactions in others – in other words, people with BPD can’t mentalize as well as controls. They also found that this lack of ability is more marked in people with BPD who also have comorbid PTSD. The fact that they mention comorbid PTSD at all is something of a revelation – or perhaps should be to us nons. Many people come to support lists and do research on the Internet and begin their “introduction” of their BPD person with a long list of childhood traumas that explains why the person has BPD. This current research would indicate that PTSD and BPD are clearly two separate disorders and that, while PTSD is a contributor to poorer functioning that BPD alone, BPD is in itself a highly inheritable disorder and biological in nature, yet “reinforced” or made more severe (especially in a social functioning sense) when PTSD is present.

Anyway, this research led me to another scientific study called “Familial Resemblance of Borderline Personality Disorder Features: Genetic or Cultural Transmission?” In which the researchers studied twins, siblings and parents of borderlines to determine the genetic underpinning of BPD or whether the environment and/or cultural influences could have more of an influence on the development of BPD. They found this: “In the present study an extended twin-family design was applied to self-report data of twins (N = 5,017) and their siblings (N = 1,266), parents (N = 3,064) and spouses (N = 939) from 4,015 families, to estimate the effects of additive and non-additive genetic and environmental factors, cultural transmission and non-random mating on individual differences in borderline personality features. Results showed that resemblance among biological relatives could completely be attributed to genetic effects.” and this: “There was no effect of cultural transmission from parents to offspring.”

Recently, in the ATSTP group, we have been discussing the idea that shame/honor-based cultures  and whether that environment could be explanatory in some sense of the development of BPD. It appears (at least based on this 2009 study) that the development and transmission of BPD is NOT cultural. It is essentially genetic (mainly “additive”, meaning it is more than one gene involved) and the environment has an effect, yet cultural transmission was not apparent.

They do go on to say this: “Gene by environment interaction implies that genes determine the degree to which an individual is sensitive to an environment. In the presence of gene-environment interaction, individuals with a ‘sensitive’ genotype will be at greater risk of developing BPD if an undesirable environment is present, than individuals with an ‘insensitive’ genotype.” So, basically, although this interaction has not been fully studied, it appears that some sort of “sensitive” genotype is required to develop BPD.

Related posts:

1. Bellman’s Syndrome – BPD and Chronic Pain
2. Possible Genetic link in BPD?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

MANY times emotionally sensitive people will read intentions and states of mind into the other that are not aligned with reality. They might say that you’re being mean or trying to ruin their life. Clearing up intention can be a way to mentalize the interaction. That is, if my wife were to say that I did something to ruin her life I can come back with “it is not my intention to ruin your life. I’m not sure why that would be my intention. Can you help me understand how you thought that was my intention?” The purpose is to get a person to start thinking about the mental states of the other person more accurately. Consequence of BEHAVIOR is important. Intention, motivation, goals, desires, etc. of mental states is also important when you’re talking interpersonal relationships. As a friend of mine said about her BPD child: “people with BPD don’t read minds, they read INTO minds” – and because BPD is configured the way that it is (threat awareness, mistrust, fear of shame discovery and intense personalization) it is likely that the intention being read into by a person with BPD will be malevolent.

The flip-side of that idea (that malevolent intentions are misread), is the idea that if it is not your intention to hurt the other person, the other person has no “right” to feel hurt. However:

One must also remember  that INTENTION DOES NOT NEGATE CONSEQUENCE, Just because you didn’t MEAN to hurt someone with a lie, just because you felt bad about yourself and lied (or bullshitted), it still can hurt the other person and their sense of trust. Just because you didn’t MEAN to burn down the house when you were playing with matches, doesn’t bring the house back.

All people, with BPD or not, need to know that, despite intention, behavior has consequences.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. BPD: What’s in a Name and How does it feel to be that person?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The most effective way to combat entanglement is a process:

• Don’t assume what the intent/motivation of the other person’s actions is. Ask. Be a detective, not a judge.
• Be honest and clear with yourself about which issues are yours and which are theirs.
• Understand that most people (particularly borderlines) are most often motivated by their feelings. This is why I say in “When Hope is Not Enough”: It’s all about his/her feelings (IAAHF). What that means is that the motivation of his/her actions is typically a reaction to his/her emotions and, for the most part, your mental states are not considered. In other words, you are not even on the radar screen, even though it feels (your emotions) like you’re being “hurt/manipulated/disrespected.
• Don’t focus so much on content – instead, look to emotional context. Think about what you’d feel if you were them in a given situation. Ask about intent. Ask about feelings. Validate feelings in order to get a clearer picture of the other person’s mind-set.
• Don’t defend. This is quite difficult to do. It takes time and practice. When people are attacked (or feel attacked), the natural reaction is to defend, deny (“That’s not what I meant!”) or to avoid. Instead, engage the other person’s mental states.
• Help get thinking back on track by asking for information. You can’t be a mind-reader. If you assume the other person’s mental states, you could be far off. You could assume the worst. If thinking (rather than reacting) can get back on the rails, then a true interaction can take place.
• Stay in the moment. Don’t plug in past problems, childhood issues (yours or theirs), history (“she always does this!”) or future fears (“he’ll never get a job!”). The conversation is about now.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Outpatient Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Structured Clinical Management for Borderline Personality Disorder
Anthony Bateman, M.A., F.R.C.Psych., and Peter Fonagy, Ph.D., F.B.A.

Objective: This randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of an 18-month mentalization-based treatment (MBT) approach in an outpatient context against a structured clinical management (SCM) outpatient approach for treatment of borderline personality disorder.

Method: Patients (N=134) consecutively referred to a specialist personality disorder treatment center and meeting selection criteria were randomly allocated to MBT or SCM. Eleven mental health professionals equal in years of experience and training served as therapists. Independent evaluators blind to treatment allocation conducted assessments every 6 months. The primary outcome was the occurrence of crisis events, a composite of suicidal and severe self-injurious behaviors and hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included social and interpersonal functioning and self-reported symptoms. Outcome measures, assessed at 6-month intervals, were analyzed using mixed effects logistic regressions for binary data, Poisson regression models for count data, and mixed effects linear growth curve models for self-report variables.

Results: Substantial improvements were observed in both conditions across all outcome variables. Patients randomly assigned to MBT showed a steeper decline of both self-reported and clinically significant problems, including suicide attempts and hospitalization.

Conclusions: Structured treatments improve outcomes for individuals with borderline personality disorder. A focus on specific psychological processes brings additional benefits to structured clinical support. Mentalization-based treatment is relatively undemanding in terms of training so it may be useful for implementation into general mental health services. Further evaluations by independent research groups are now required.

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/55

Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. New guidance for management of self-harm issued
3. A failure to mentalize – Mentalization Information Part 2

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

New "Beyond Boundaries" eBook

I published a new eBook called Beyond Boundaries: the advanced guide for loved ones of people with BPD. This 72 page eBook is packed with information and tools for you to gain a more effective and calmer relationship with someone with BPD. It is the culmination of what I have done in When Hope is Not Enough as well as what I have been working on since. It explains (rather tersely) what you can do and how you can get your relationship to be more of a trusting, loving relationship. It also explains when boundaries are helpful and when they are not.

The cost of the new eBook is $18.00. I think you will find that it is worth it. People in NY will have to pay sales tax. Sorry, blame the NY State legislature.

The eBook is available through Google Checkout below:

Beyond Boundaries

Related posts:

1. Boundaries and BPD
2. Lindsay Lohan and BPD (maybe but not for sure)
3. Bon’s Free eBook Downloaded 6,000 Times Last Year

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sometimes the holidays can be stressful

Hey all, I haven’t posted much in the way of skills lately, but today, as the holidays are upon us, I think it is helpful to go over some emotional skills and other tools that can help us non-BPD people get through the holidays reasonably unscathed. The holidays are a tough emotional time for everyone. There are expectations that the holidays be “jolly and happy” when, sometimes, the holidays are anything but. The get-together with relatives – many who don’t understand the actions, feelings and behaviors of someone with BPD – can cause huge stress for those with BPD and for the loved ones. Expectations of a low conflict Christmas (or other holiday) are typical, but not often “delivered upon”. Stress and the feeling of being “on-stage” or “good enough” for the family can cause emotional dysregulation and distress. Sometimes an invalidating family can compare the person with BPD with other, less emotional family members. You know, “why can’t you be like your cousin?”

So, in order to skillfully approach the holidays, I’d like to remind non-BPD people and people with BPD alike of the following skills that can help all of us get through. Here we go:

1.    Frustration Tolerance. Sometimes we are overcome with frustration. We feel like we “can’t stand it” or “can’t take it anymore.” When you feel that way, I would encourage you to ask yourself some questions that can help build frustration tolerance. Some questions are:

a.    Can I really not stand it?
b.    Am I really going to explode?
c.    How does exploding/raging help me in my relationships?
d.    What can I do to decrease the frustration?

2.   Mentalizing with yourself in a search for meaning within other people’s actions. Often people jump to conclusions or assume the intent and motivation of others. Sometimes these motivations are assumed to be malevolent, invalidating or uncaring. You can ask yourself the following questions to help understand the intent within yourself:

a.    Do I really believe that he/she is being mean?
b.    Is there another explanation as to his/her motivations?
c.    What would he/she be feeling that could explain this action?

3.    Mentalizing with others to understand others’ internal mental states. Be curious. Ask questions. Don’t “load” these questions. That is, ask “can you clarify what you meant, I’m not sure I understand you intention?” vs. “Why are you being so mean to me?”

4.   Be validating toward yourself and others. Remember that emotions are a major influence on people’s behavior. Listen to others and validate the emotions. Validation does not equal agreement with behavior. It shows that you have heard the other person’s emotions and that it is ok to feel however one feels. Normalization can also be helpful here.

5.    Don’t label people, label events. In other words, rather than saying “he’s an asshole”, say “he did something that bothered me.” This can be used on your own actions as well. Rather than telling yourself you’re a “failure,” you can say “I didn’t do that as I would have liked.”

6.    Be mindful of the moment. Monitor interactions actively and in a way that is non-judgmental. Don’t get caught up in past reactions or fear of future reactions.

7.    Cheerlead yourself and others. This is not “positive mental attitude” statements. This is encouraging others to be brave and effective. The essence of this skill is “you can do/face hard/difficult things.”

8.    Consider the consequences of mind-altering substances. Too much alcohol and/or drugs can create impulsive situations and ones that you may regret later. Think before you drink.

Here’s wishing you all an effective holiday season!

Take good care,
Bon

Related posts:

1. Interesting Article from Time Magazine on BPD
2. Lindsay Lohan and possible BPD (more detail this time)
3. Holiday Discount of Publisher’s version of When Hope is Not Enough

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Mentalizing conference call with Drs. Peter Fonagy & Efrain Bleiberg
At the request of participants and the positive response to this November 2009 presentation on the interactive conference call, we are making this tape availalble.

Download conference call

Related posts:

1. New Free “White Paper”: 5 Common Mistakes by Non-BPs
2. Shared my First Presentation on Slide Share
3. Ask Bon: How do I get my borderline loved one in therapy? What’s the best kind of therapy? How long will it take to cure them?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Mindblindness

A little while ago, I was reading through “Mentalizing in Clinical Practice” (a dense read, but worth it IMO) and I was reading the section on Mindblindness. This is a concept that was originally developed with respect to autism. It means that you have the inability to accurately read the intentions, motivations or emotions of another person, based on their behavior. We each develop (around 3-4 years old) the ability to read others motivations based on their behavior. The example they give in the book is a “mind reading” (in the sense of accurately understanding another person’s motivations – internal states – based on behavior) test – it is as follows:

Maxi is helping his mother unload the groceries. He takes the chocolate chips out of the bag and places it in the GREEN cabinet, remembering where he put it with the intention of coming back later and eating some. He goes out to play. While he is outside, his mother opens the GREEN cabinet and takes out the chocolate and uses some for cookies. She places the bag back in the BLUE cabinet and goes down to grab the laundry. While she is gone Maxi returns to get the chocolate. Which cabinet does Maxi open to try to find the chocolate chips?

Most of us would say GREEN, right? People with mindblindness and little children (less than 3-4) say BLUE. Why? Because they already know the chocolate is in the BLUE cabinet – they can’t put their minds in the mindset of MAXI, who doesn’t know the chocolate has been moved.

Why do I bring this up?

Because both people with BPD and Nons do this sort of thing all the time. We attribute motivations to others based on information in OUR minds and not on information in THEIRS. Next time you attribute a motivation to your BP (i.e. “she’s trying to control me!” or “she’s out to get me” or “she’s just trying to get attention”) stop and think about this post. Instead of assuming, ask.

Related posts:

1. Turning the Mind around Social Situations

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

DBT calls this “apparent competence,” which makes sense with respect to the dialectical model (the dialectic side of apparent competence is “active passivity” BTW). The one thing that never made a whole lot of sense to me was how the behavior can generally be “reined in” when with certain people. Most non-borderlines think, “Well, if she can control her behavior with [whomever], this must be completely under her control. So, she needs to start behaving better with me.” Sometimes, it seems as though a person with BPD can turn it on and off at will. However, this is not really the case.

Instead, mentalization explains this through attachment relationships: The closer the attachment, the more at stake for a person with BPD. This is why there is a fear of abandonment in BPD. When it comes to close relationships (such as partner or parent), the attachment is more important to the person with BPD and the fear of losing that attachment, the fear that the other person will judge him/her as wrong or bad (shame), is much larger. Unfortunately, the method of coping with this fear is usually maladaptive and functions to push the other person further away. Sadly, that can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of abandonment.

When Hope is Not Enough
Get the Non-BPD book that is designed for
staying and working on the relationship

Related posts:

1. BF Skinner meets Buddha with DBT
2. A failure to mentalize – Mentalization Information Part 2
3. Mentalization Information Part 1

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Implicit and Explicit

In a Non-BP/BPD relationship, this connection is generally broken. There are too many assumptions, too much focus on the content (rather than the meaning/function), too much personalization and too much “baggage” that prevents fully mentalizing. Some of the ways that one can fully mentalize is to approach each conversation from a particular “framework,” the characteristics of which are not a complete list, but a nice first attempt):

• Being curious about the other person’s implicit situation. Ask them how they feel. (“How did you feel when he said that?”)
• Validation for the purpose of understanding implicit understandings. (“Wow, that must have made you feel awful! Why do you think he said that?”)
• Being humble and admitting “fault” where “fault” is warranted. (“Yes, I can see that when I said that it hurt your feelings. That wasn’t my intention.”)
• Being compassionate for the other person’s suffering. (“You seem to be in a lot of pain right now. What do you think would help you feel better?”)
• Seeing the situation through the other person’s eyes.
• Starting afresh in each conversation, without grievances, relationship failures, victimhood, or assumptions that this is the “same” conversation over and over again. (NOT: “Here we go again.”)
• Being fully engaged in the conversation.
• Noticing words, actions and body language that break down engagement. (“When I said that, you seem to have gotten upset. What happened there?”)
• Listen for meaning, rather than just hearing the words.

Related posts:

1. Shame and BPD
2. Mentalization Information Part 1
3. A failure to mentalize – Mentalization Information Part 2

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Event -> Interpretation -> Emotional/Physical Feelings -> Action Impulses -> Expression and Behavior

DBT-FST seems to me to operate at the Action Impulses to Expression and Behavior link, while validating the Emotional/Physical Feelings link. Don’t get me wrong, the DBT-FST skills are extremely powerful in communicating with someone with BPD. Yet, the change that is requested is at the end of the chain. I have heard that Marsha Linehan is quoted as saying something like, “Just because you feel like a crazy person, doesn’t mean you have to behave like one.” The point here is that DBT is a behavioral therapy and by modifying behavior, that works backwards toward regulating emotion and tolerating distress. In other words, DBT trains you to behave differently based on your feelings. When you gradually learn that your new behavior is more effective than the previous behavior, you break the conditioned chain between Action Impulses and Expression and Behavior. That is the essence of the DBT skill “Opposite Action.” An interesting side note is that by practicing Opposite Action (that is, doing the exact opposite of what your feelings implore you to do – such as engaging when you feel sad, rather than hiding under the covers all day), you actually feel better, because the action does work backward. Dr. Paul Ekman found that configuring one’s face to mimic a certain feeling actually causes that feeling to be experienced. That is the theory behind DBT’s “Half Smile” skill. Ultimately though, by working at that link in the chain, the person still feels the emotion, yet he or she just behaves differently than the emotion originally informed him/her to behave.

MBT on the other hand takes on the on the problem at the Interpretation link. By asking questions and being open to alternative interpretations, the person with BPD is more likely to have a broader view of other people’s behavior and the events in life. DBT never asks about the intent or motivation of the other person and just takes the interpretation as a given in a person with BPD. If a person with BPD says something happens and that something means X, then in DBT it means X. There is very little questioning of the validity of the interpretation X. In MBT, however, the interpretation X can be questioned and alternative interpretations (such as Y or Z) can be examined. The nice thing about this is that when the person with BPD is faced with a similar situation, he/she is less likely to jump to conclusion X and might consider Y or Z.

An example of the differences in the two approaches is as follows:

My daughter comes home from school after being teased by a boy on the playground. My daughter ends up throwing a thermos at the boy’s head.

With DBT, I would validate her anger and ask her how she could behave more effectively the next time this teasing occurs. So next time she will behave more effectively and not throw the thermos.

With MBT, I would validate her feelings and begin to probe with curious and straight-forward questions as to the intent of the boy. Perhaps he actually likes my daughter and that is why he is teasing. Perhaps he is showing off to his friends. If this approach is taken, my daughter is more likely to consider the boy’s motivation for the teasing. If she understands the motivation, she can actually never get angry and risk throwing the thermos.

All of that being said, I believe these skills have to be learned as a “ladder” to effectiveness. You can’t start at point E without going through points A-D. DBT-FST provide the foundation for more advanced skills, like those in MBT.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychoanalysis/unit-staff/anthony.htm

Related posts:

1. Mentalization Based Therapy Shows Promise with BPD
2. How mentalization and attachment might explain “high-functioning” BPD
3. Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Structured Clinical Management for BPD

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The study, “8-Year Follow-Up of Patients Treated for Borderline Personality Disorder: Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Treatment as Usual,” is the latest analysis of a randomized trial first reported in AJP in October 1999 and titled “Effectiveness of Partial Hospitalization in the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial.”

Joel Paris, M.D., an expert on BPD, explained that mentalization therapy, developed by Bateman and Fonagy in the 1990s, is based on attachment theory and on observations that BPD patients have a failure of “mentalization”—the ability to observe their own emotions and those of other people and to appreciate how their behavior may affect others.

“Mentalization-based therapy can be considered as an amalgam of psychodynamic and cognitive methods,” he told Psychiatric News.

For instance, a case report included in the study describes a 24-year-old woman who was referred from forensic services after her arrest for setting fire to her university dormitory.

She had a history of recent suicide attempts and regularly burned herself with cigarettes and a hot iron. In individual sessions, treatment initially focused on clarifying her own feelings and others’ experience of her; later it progressed to helping her appreciate how her experiences of self-doubt and emotional turbulence led to a sense of fragmentation that was controlled only by experiences of intense physical pain, according to Bateman and Fonagy.

“The individual therapist identified these processes while focusing on the way she represented her own mental states and those of others with whom she interacted,” they wrote. “Gradually this was explored within the relationship with the therapist.”

They report the patient as stating, “It never occurred to me that what I did had an effect on anyone else.”

I have to say the suicide figures are astounding, especially when it comes to attempts. I mean, over 80% in two of the categories!

Related posts:

1. Dutch Study Shows Promise
2. A failure to mentalize – Mentalization Information Part 2
3. Ask Bon: How do I get my loved one with BPD to go to therapy?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When Hope is Not Enough
Get the Non-BPD book that is designed for
staying and working on the relationship

So here goes:

She says:

Dealing with Borderlines is like a spiritual warfare.

It is? How so? The remainder of the article doesn’t really answer that question.

She says:

What strange traits does a Borderline have that look like demon possession? Low, rasping moans and screams were escaping her mouth, which brought chills down your spine. You looked at her face and saw dark coal eyes, and as the moment intensified, her eyes turned red. Her transformation let you step back as you heard her laughing like a witch. She cursed and cussed you. Her stern voice turned to the most hideous sound you could imagine. In front of you was a woman with a pure-red face spitting anger and rage. It was scary.

Who is “you” in this? The woman’s husband? Where did this come from? “Low, rasping moans and screams”? I’m not sure where this incident comes from or who it is attributed to. I have certainly been the subject of rages in my years as a Non-BP, but this?

She says:

This scene is common among people with relationships with a person who has Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).

It is? How does she know? From where does she gain such knowledge. Is it common among people she knows or what? I have been running an Internet List for Non-BP’s for almost three years now. I have found that this type of experience occurs sometimes within a Non-BP/BP relationship, but common? Hmmm….

She says:

“Life is hell” described literally by NONs or non-borderlines, a person who does not have BPD but has a loved one with BPD.

And yes, that is true. Life can seem like hell for Non-BPs (and BPs alike). My question is: From whom did she get this knowledge?

She says:

According to BorderlineCentral.com, Borderline Personality Disorder is a “real, diagnosable psychiatric disorder, and its criteria are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association.” There has been a stigma in the past for personality disorders such as BPD as a form of demonic possession. Up until the 19th century, personality disorders such as BPD began to take the form of “hysteria” in psychiatry.

OK, so it is a “real, diagnosable psychiatric disorder,” right? And that “there has been a stigma in the past for personality disorders such as BPD as a form of demonic possession.” So, let’s perpetuate that stigma, shall we? I mean, in one sentence she cites a source saying that BPD is a psychiatric disorder and in the next she mentions that in the past there has been a stigma of demonic possession? Where is the rational line of thought here?

She says:

Many articles have emerged on a possible link between demon possession and Borderline Personality Disorder.

Many articles? In respected journals or no? By BPD experts or no? Where are these articles?

She says:

Christopher H. Rosik in his article from the Journal of Psychology and Theology stated that “They have altered personalities and often exhibit behaviors that appear identical to traditional descriptions of possession: evil-appearing glares, angry voices, self-hatred, self-harm, aversion to God and religion, and other symptoms.”

Alright, I’ve got about 20 problems with this. First of all Christopher Rosik, Ph. D. was a past president of the “Christian Association for Psychological Studies” (see http://www.capswest.org/new/boardpage.asp). He participated as a psychologist in a forum entitled ” Critical Issues in the Dissociative Disorders Field: Six Perspectives from Religiously Sensitive Practitioners” and authored the transcript and review of a compilation of the study (see this link). He consistently publishes in the “Journal of Psychology and Theology” which is not a main-line psychological journal. It is one dedicated to the following purpose:

Purpose

The purpose of the Journal of Psychology and Theology is to communicate recent scholarly thinking on the interrelationships of psychological and theological concepts, and to consider the application of these concepts to a variety of professional settings. The major intent of the editor is to place before the evangelical community articles that have bearing on the nature of humankind from a biblical perspective. (see https://wisdom.biola.edu/jpt/about.cfm)

So, there’s the source with which I have an initial problem.

Then there’s the content of the quote. He states:

…appear identical to traditional descriptions of possession: evil-appearing glares, angry voices, self-hatred, self-harm, aversion to God and religion….

“Traditional descriptions of possession?” Perhaps those “traditional descriptions” were not describing possession at all, but were instead describing a psychiatric disorder as mentioned above? By “linking” traditional descriptions of possession and behaviors that are sometimes included in BPD, he tries to create validity for traditional descriptions of possession that is just not there. I could do the same thing with any “traditional description” of behavior that has been attributed to a believed cause in the past. In Salem, during the witch hysteria, we could call these people witches, correct? Does that lend any credence whatsoever to the fact that they are or are not witches?

Now, the behaviors he describes:

evil-appearing glares…

Evil to whom?

…aversion to God and religion…

Wait a minute here. I have found that many BPs (though certainly not all) have an attachment to religion, particularly to the fundamentalist Christian faith. There are at least five to ten examples that I could cite from my Internet List of extremely devout Christian BPs. In some senses, they seem to be drawn to the idea of judgment of themselves and others and strict religious views actually reinforce the sense of judgment. They find themselves and others to be all good (in God’s graces) or all evil (in the hands of the devil). This is a function of black-and-white thinking, not temporary demonic possession.

The author of this article goes on to cite a case of an ex-husband (of course an ex) whose ex-wife had “borderline personality disorder.” I put it in quotes because I don’t know if this woman was diagnosed. The author describes some behavior that might indicate BPD – jealously, emptiness, rage, manipulation, etc. – but we don’t know if the ex-husband is reporting all this truthfully and, if he is, whether the condition is another disorder. Let’s assume the ex-wife does have BPD. Some of the language used to describe her behavior is clearly judgmental such as:

With children she can use as pawns, Renee became a very manipulative person.

To get what she wants, Renee snatched her children out-of-state to pressure Patrick to her whims. Patrick was hesitant to marry her.

She would wait all day counting the minutes until he returns home and gives him a guilt trip for her feelings of emptiness.

To free herself from the shame and guilt of her decision, she brainwashed the children on the evils of their faith.

And some of the text doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me:

He was now very familiar with Renee’s mood swings. It alternates with periods of intense depression.

What alternates with periods of depression? As for mood swings, yes, that is the whole nature of the disorder. Then we hear that the ex-wife:

She dabbled into wicca, tarot cards, new age and psychic readings. She went to party at night and eventually found a lover 11 years her junior.

Well, if she “dabbled into wicca, tarot cards, new age and psychic readings” she must be possessed huh? And how does finding a lover 11 years her junior go into the same paragraph as “dabbling” in those things? Are they equivalent?

Now we get a real kicker:

The children have not been going to their church for a long time after the couple’s separation. So Patrick brought a holy “host” from the Catholic Church so the older children can receive Holy Communion. In the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is actually receiving “Jesus Christ” and is held with much reverence. Upon seeing this, Renee burst into an uncontrollable anger. She screamed like a possessed woman and ran to the hosts. She grabbed them, threw them on the floor and stamped her feet hoping to crush the host into pieces. This act is considered “sacrilegious” in the Catholic Church and may be considered comparable to a demonic possession.

So, the wife doesn’t want the religion of her ex-husband in her house. Her impulsive and out-of-portion reaction is typical of emotional dysregulation. However, according to the author she “screamed like a possessed woman” (again, like a possessed woman to whom?). Then she committed a sacrilegious (in quotes for some unknown reason) act – one that the Catholic Church “may consider comparable to demonic possession.” OK, well… if the Catholic Church “may” consider it “comparable to demonic possession,” is it an indication of possession or not? And, again, what authority does the Catholic Church have in the area of psychiatric disorders? Either it’s a psychiatric disorder or it is possession, right? Or could it be both? Clearly, the author is exposing her own biases toward the beliefs of the Catholic Church, rather than an intimate knowledge of the dynamic underpinnings of BPD.

She goes on to say:

The once attractive spouses that enchanted NONs turn into gruesome-looking beings with glaring, black coal eyes turning red and watery.

They do? Dang, I better watch out for that transformation. I know that people with BPD can get hateful and hateful-looking when angry, but everyone gets that way when that angry. BPs have trouble regulating their emotions and emotions feed other emotions. Sure, you get a very angry person, but that is all you have, not a demonical possessed person.

She goes on:

Most NONs claim that their BPD lover’s demeanor changes abruptly. They had a sneer on their faces and acted as if they were in another dimension. They would flinch whenever Jesus Christ or God was mentioned. They would scream with the worst blasphemy one could imagine. It is surprising how many NONs experience similar mannerisms and facial expressions from their Borderline loved ones.

“Most” NONs? From which source does she get that data? How many NONs has she talked with? I have talked with literally hundreds, in-person and online, and, while they are clearly exasperated by their BPs behavior, I’m not sure how “it is surprising how many NONs experience similar mannerisms…” is being backed up here. If someone is angry, sure, they will have certain facial expressions and mannerisms, but that is true of anyone, not just BPs. The key is what to do about it.

Oh and as for BPs that “flinch whenever Jesus Christ or God was mentioned” – that has not been my experience. Where did she get that? As I have said several BPs I know use Jesus or God to judge others and themselves. The idea that there can be an ultimate decider of good and evil can be very attractive to someone with BPD.

OK, some more:

Demon possession in itself is a taboo subject. But for non-Christians, the evils of Borderlines must have another rational explanation.

Well, I suppose it is a “taboo subject” because it is hogwash. Then she says, “But for non-Christians…” – why use the word “but”? To me it makes no sense. As for the “evils” that “must have another rational explanation” – uh, yeah, it is called a psychiatric disorder that involves dsyregulation is several areas. The foremost of these areas are emotional dysregulation, impulsiveness and shame. I wonder if telling someone with a psychiatric disorder that they might have difficulty controlling without medication and therapy that they are possessed by demonic forces might cause more shame and fear in them. Hmmm? Maybe we need to start calling people with cancer sinners that deserve what they get. I’m sure most tumors, genetic diseases, mental disorders, malformations and skin rashes all have a spiritual dimension. Perhaps it is the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children?

And yet more:

However, they do not deny how a Borderline’s presence exhibits darkness, lies, betrayal, greed, addiction, abuse, pride, control, manipulation, hatred and rebellion. All are elements of spiritual bondage yielding sin.

Great. I can’t think of anything more invalidating to a person with an emotional disorder to compare their state with demonic possession. I mean, think about it. Let’s suppose you are angry at something and your NON says, “Well, the reason that you feel this way and act this way is that you are possessed with a demon.” That’s worst than, “You’re crazy” is it not? Or maybe it can get the BP out of some blame for his or her actions. After all, if the devil made you do it….

The point is this woman is being extremely invalidating to the BPs whatever her point and conclusion. That sort of invalidation is something that has contributed to the disorder all a BP’s life. Calling a person with BPD a “possessed” person is extremely invalidating to the person’s emotional responses. And, what if the borderline is your child? The author seems only to be addressing “BP lovers” here, but if your child is borderline, is she also “possessed”?

She then says:

Patrick did his best to get help for Renee. Patrick sought the help of his spiritual director in the hope of finding answers to his predicament.

Well, I’m not sure that Patrick “did his best to get help” for his Ex. The author certainly doesn’t convince me he did his best. First of all, you can’t “get help” for another person. I’m sorry but that just upsets a person with BPD. If you are saying essentially, “You need help” or “You have a mental problem” or worse “You are possessed by a demon” I don’t call that “doing one’s best.” Maybe instead of (or better in addition to) going to his spiritual advisor he could have looked into DBT and DBT family skills, Patrick could have done a little better than his best.

OK, there’s still more:

His spiritual director advised that he remain steadfast in his prayers and God will hear him. With trust in God, Patrick focused on saving his children. He taught his children to pray together and pray for their Borderline mother. One day, Renee found the children an inconvenience and decided to give custody to Patrick.

Well, I glad the praying worked for “Patrick” (not his real name). Actually, prayer is suggested by DBT as a way to help tolerate distress. I still wonder though, based on the configuration of this paragraph, whether the prayer caused Renee to find the children an “inconvenience”? I guess so.

OK, now for her conclusion:

The Borderline exhibits traits and characteristics similar to a person being possessed or oppressed.

There seems to be a major hedging here. “Possessed or oppressed?” Which is it?

It seems that possession is a fact in this author’s mind, so no need to question the actual existence of possession, right?

Now she says:

Many believe that evil preys on the weaknesses of people.

“Many?” OK, who? What does one back that statement up with? And also, evil as a spiritual force seems to be a given here.

And now we get:

Many NONs, who have successfully departed from the vicious relationship with a Borderline, swear that their Borderlines Ex have been taken over by “something”.

Of course they have “departed from the vicious relationship.” And they should be listened to? Why is it that all the ex-es rule the day when it comes to the opinions of the borderline’s behavior? How about actually educating yourself about BPD and then deciding what is actually happening? Sure, these people are taken over by “something” – it’s called strong negative emotions and it happens to everyone from time-to-time. It probably happens more often to someone with BPD, because of the nature of the disorder, not because there are demonic forces at work.

Now she says:

When we deal with evil, there is no recourse but to look at things from a spiritual dimension.

Oh really? OK, well who decided that the BP is evil, not just sick or mentally disabled, she is EVIL! And, “no recourse but to look at things from a spiritual dimension?” Says who? The author? God? True evil, if it exists and I might argue that it does in certain people (but not demonic possession, just evil and destructive thoughts and actions), can be dealt with by applying human morals, resolve and compassion. The idea that in order for evil to exist there must be a force that drives evil instead of say, mental disease, is not a leap that I am willing to take. Clearly, the author has already taken this leap in her faith and has decided that, if evil exists, then evil spiritual force also must be at work.

Now she says:

There are a few treatment options for BPD.

Well, actually, there are many treatment options for BPD and some are more effective than others. DBT, SFT and Mentalization have all been shown more effective than therapy-as-usual when it comes to BPD. The increase of acceptance + mindfulness with traditional CBT also seems to be effective in treating BPD.

And she concludes with this:

Dealing with the evil and chaos of the relationship with a Borderline can be analogous to a spiritual warfare. The spiritual warrior must seek to constantly strengthen himself in an understanding of God’s truth. As you struggle to deal with the chaos and oppression, trust God for He will lead you to the truth. He will be the only armor you’ll need for shield and protection. God’s matchless weapons are mercy and peace.

I wonder why she bothers to hedge yet again with the phrase “can be analogous to”? I mean, if spiritual forces are at work and it is a war between good and evil being fought on a spiritual dimension, then why bother? Clearly the NON is on the side of good and Godliness (if he/she “seeks to constantly strengthen himself”) and the BP is one the side of the demonic and evil forces. In her opinion as we struggle to “deal with the chaos and oppression,” trusting in God is the answer to lead you to the truth – although I am having difficulty making heads or tails of the truth in her article. Is she saying that BPD = demonic possession or BPD is like demonic possession – and, if it is the latter – why do we have to make use of our spiritual warfare stances to deal with this “evil?”

I’d like to conclude by stating two reasons that I bothered to review this article in such detail. One is that I think that comparing BPD to demonic possession merely further strengthens an “us vs. them” mentality that has already been perpetuated all over the Internet and in books for Nons. It is a basic misunderstanding of the disorder and invalidates the natural responses of the sufferer. Plus, if they believe you are against them and judge them as evil, you’re in for a whole lot of trouble. Secondly, I am not dismissing that prayer can offer solace to anyone, including the Nons. At the same time, my prescription for a Non is not to rely entirely on prayer. It is instead to learn the dynamics of the disorder and acquire the emotional skills necessary to more effectively handle a person with BPD.

Calling them possessed or evil is just going to make things much worse.

Related posts:

1. Celebrities with Borderline Personality Disorder (possibly, not for sure)
2. Ten signs of possible Borderline Personality Disorder in children
3. Book Review: Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.