Beyond Boundaries Buy the new eBook from Bon. "Beyond Boundaries" is the culmination of five years of research, practice and hard work. It's $18.00 at Google Checkout.
When Hope is Not Enough Buy "When Hope is Not Enough" eBook from Google Checkout (and save $0.50!):
But I Love You Buy "But I Love You" eBook from Google Checkout:
A free eBook – 4X4 for Nons
|
 Are you and your BP on the same team? I often hear people with BPD/ERD say that they feel that their loved ones are “not on my side” or that the loved ones are “supposed to be on my side.” This phrase stuck out at me when I read the story about the suicide of Megan Meier (the “MySpace suicide” case), because, although I have no insight into Megan’s mental health, clearly when she was insulted and rejected on MySpace, and she was emotionally dysregulated. She came to her mother, and after her mother admonished her for the use of foul language on MySpace, Megan cried and said, “You’re my mom. You’re supposed to be on my side!” ( This according to her mother’s reports).
When someone is highly emotional, they need to know that they have an advocate and that someone is on “their side.” I often ask my consulting clients (especially partners of people with emotional regulation issues) if they feel that their partner and they are “on the same team.” Many times the answer is no. Why does someone have a desire to have someone on their side, even when the “sides” are not desired, intended or even clearly delineated? The answer in my mind comes down to shame and rejection sensitivity.
If a person has shame (or even low self-worth, which is similar), then the person is likely to have a high level of rejection sensitivity. Being rejected by others is painful, especially for emotional people. Having an advocate of their “side” of the issue, which is essentially answering, “I am on your side no matter what the situation,” is tantamount in these highly emotional, social interactions that involve rejection. One can be “on their side” emotionally without condoning whatever behavior that one doesn’t agree with.
There are teaching moments and there are times that one doesn’t teach. If you try and teach, punish or impart values during a period of emotional dysregulation, the relationship will be damaged and nothing effective will be accomplished. Instead, emotional validation and support can be used to cool the bonfire. Once it is cool, then a teaching moment can present itself.
 Recently, I noticed that one of my list members created kobies.org – which is a site dedicated to kids of Borderline Personality Disorder parents. My own kids represent part of this group. What I found was that his site was sending me about 3 times the traffic I was sending him. So, I wanted to highlight his site: www.kobies.org.
Enjoy! (ok, if you’re a kid of a BP you might not be enjoying, but hopefully it will help).
UPDATE: www.kobies.org seems to not longer be available. I don’t know why as of yet.
 Today, a member of my list posted an excerpt from Randi Kreger’s new book about why people stay in abusive relationships. Randi mentioned Stockholm Syndrome as a possible reason. I am currently writing a new edition of my book When Hope is No Enough. I cover the concept of Stockholm Syndrome and why I think it doesn’t apply BPD/Non-BP relationships. Here is an unedited excerpt from my second edition about this subject:
Learned Helplessness and PTSD
Another concept that is new to this edition is the idea of learned helplessness and PTSD as Non-BP’s. Personally, I think this concept applies to both people with BPD and those who loved them. Not so long ago I was reading a “Non-BPD Staying” book (one that, as this book does, encourages the acquisition of certain skills to live with a BP). This book mentioned the idea of “Stockholm Syndrome” sometimes occurs within the Non-BP’s mind. Stockholm Syndrome is a condition in which a person who is abducted begins to feel sympathy for and identify with his or her abductor(s). It was coined following a six-day hostage crisis in 1973 in Stockholm, Sweden in which the captors began to feel emotionally attached to their abductors. This other “Non-BP” book likens the state of the mind of a Non-BP to those captors; that is, the abused person (the Non-BP) begins to develop an emotional attachment to the BP because of this dynamic. Stockholm Syndrome has also been used in the context of a weaker abused person (such as a child) bonding to a more powerful abuser. While it is not a professionally recognized diagnosis, several high-profile abduction and abuse cases have mentioned the syndrome in the popular press, including the high-profile case of Patty Hearst. I believe that application of Stockholm Syndrome to a BPD/Non-BP relationship is inaccurate in almost every case. While there may be certain cases in which this dynamic exists, of all of the individuals that I have met in person and online, I have yet to see any that could be properly described as Stockholm Syndrome.
One problem in my mind with the application of this label is that it creates a defined abuser/abused polar relationship and discounts the real affection one may have for the (supposed) love one in your life. Mistreatment certainly goes both way in any relationship and in the case of a BP/Non-BP relationship, that mistreatment can arise to the level of abuse. I don’t, however, think it can arise to the level of abductor, captor or terrorist on either part. It may feel that way at times, but relationships go through many changes during the course of months and years and to say that the overriding factor contributing to the relationship is only and solely one of abuse and mistreatment, that would indicate (to me at least) that the relationship is not based on love and one which might likely be better off terminated. However, if you are this person’s parent or child, it may not be possible to terminate such as relationship. Instead, you have to find ways to break the cycle of abuse. It is difficult, no doubt. Stockholm Syndrome is, in my mind, an extreme form of co-dependency.
 When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds! A more useful concept is that of learned helplessness. One of the major differences between Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness is that the former is psychodynamic or psychoanalytic (through attachment and/or object relationship explanations) and the later is behavioral. Before I began to research BPD and the “plight” of the Non-BP, I was never much of a behaviorist. Once I started to understand what actually worked with BPD, I have warmed up to the idea of behavioral therapies in general and to DBT specifically (because it is something of a hybrid approach to acceptance and change, whereas CBT is typical places more emphasis on change). There are several differences between the idea of learned helplessness and Stockholm Syndrome. First, I need to define learned helplessness such that you understand the concept and why it may apply to you (or your BP loved one).
Learned helplessness is a state in which a person (or an animal, which is a major difference because it operates at a lower brain level than does the psychoanalytic-derived object relations model that explains Stockholm Syndrome) discovers that no behavior can counteract the pain and suffering that that person is feeling. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on learned helplessness:
Learned helplessness is a psychological condition in which a human being or an animal has learned to act or behave helpless in a particular situation, even when it has the power to change its unpleasant or even harmful circumstance. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation (Seligman, 1975).
The idea of learned helplessness is derived from a behavioral experiment in by Seligman and Maier in 1967. These researchers took dogs and placed them in experimental conditions in which one group of dogs could stop shocks coming from a grid beneath their feet by pressing a lever. In other words, pressing the lever was the behavior that allowed them to escape pain. These dogs learned to press the level repeatedly to escape the suffering induced by the electric shocks. Another group of dogs also had the grid and the lever, but in their case pressing the lever did nothing to alleviate the painful shocks. The shocks did not increase or decrease by behaving in any particular fashion. The lever did nothing to stop the pain they were feeling. These dogs learned that they were completely helpless to lessen their pain. Eventually, these dogs merely “laid down on the gird” and accepted the shocks without attempting a behavior which might remove the shocks. This reaction is the essence of learned helplessness. If a person learns that no matter what they try nothing works to alleviate their pain, they eventually give up on trying and “lay down on the grid.”
I believe this idea better describes the dynamic between any other person (including the BP/Non-BP relationship) than does Stockholm Syndrome. I say this because unlike Stockholm Syndrome in which one party is deemed the abuser and the other the abused, learned helplessness is about pain avoidance – either on the BP or Non-BP side. If what you try, over and over, doesn’t work to alleviate pain, then you eventually learn that the pain is unavoidable and you “lie down on the grid” and accept the pain as unavoidable – or you go nuclear and terminate the relationship or commit suicide. If everything you do, even if you try the diametrically opposed action to the previous action and that doesn’t work, results in suffering and equal pain, eventually you are going to learn that you are helpless to the pain – this is what learned helplessness is all about. I don’t think this concept is only about the Non-BP (which the idea of Stockholm Syndrome assumes – that is, there is one abuser and one abused, which in a loving relationship seem ridiculous to me. I mean, after all, we are talking about “loved ones” and families are we not?), No, the idea of learned helplessness cuts both ways because both parties are using ineffective methods to remove pain and both parties end up banging their head up against to wall of ineffectiveness. If nothing works, despair rules and the only solution is to accept your fate and “lay down on the grid.”
The way out of learned helplessness is a reconditioning of one’s behavior in which the pain can be removed. That is another difference in the idea of Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness. The mechanics of Stockholm Syndrome are impossible to counteract (I suppose it’s years of psychoanalytic therapy or other ideas that this “Non-BP” book purports), while the mechanics of learned helplessness are difficult, yet possible, to counteract. What one has to do to counteract the condition of learned helplessness is find a behavior or technique that is not helpless. One has to find a technique or behavior that one can practice and be effective to alleviate the suffering of the condition in which one is currently helpless.
The reason that I included this section on learned helplessness in this section of the book is two-fold. While I have yet to talk about the tools to counteract this and other relationship issues that can arise from an ineffective BP/Non-BP relationship (I do that later in the book), I just wrote about conditioned behavior and I am about to write about emotional memory. Conditioned behavior and learned helplessness can happen in both humans and in animals. These two concepts are interrelated. I’m not sure about emotional memory and if it applies to animals. However, if whatever you try to reduce your pain doesn’t work, you eventually learn that nothing works – that is the state of learned helplessness. Within the framework of the BPD dynamic, if you find that your reactions and behaviors are ineffectual, these reactions and behaviors are ineffective at reducing your suffering and at fostering a calmer relationship. So, learned helplessness is related to conditioned behavior and learned helplessness can grow out of the BPD dynamic if you continue to perpetuate ineffective behavior.
Unlike Stockholm Syndrome, learned helplessness is born out of trust. Stockholm Syndrome is born out of abuse and/or hostage-taking. Your loved one is not (however it may feel at times) a kidnapper, terrorist or, intentionally, an abuser. They (and you) are trying to get needs met. The relationship generally is born out of trust and presumed love, whether romantic, familiar or friendly (or a combination of each). The basic premise of the nature of the relationship is a significant difference between Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness. It is not just the nature of the concepts academically (one is psychodynamic, the other behavioral), it is the foundation for the relationship that is divergent. The dogs in the learned helplessness experiments essentially trusted and relied upon their “owners” – they needed food and shelter provide by the experimenters (which in a way makes their case more tragic). In the case of Stockholm Syndrome, the initial state between subject and object is adversarial. The abusers or abductors are part of the initial part in the equation, as are the abused and the abducted. There is a clear perpetuator and a clear victim, but in my mind, no such clear lines between these categories exist in a BPD/Non-BP relationship. Certainly, Non-BP’s do feel embattled and, at times, overwhelmed, but, upon reflection, so do BP’s. Both groups are behaving in ways that are ineffective and ineffectual for reducing pain, for increasing understanding and for maintaining calm in the relationship.
One of the keys to understanding learned helplessness is to understand that no effective behavior can be found to escape pain. While BP’s might resort to “extreme” behavior to reduce their pain (such as cutting, risk-taking behavior, drug taking and others) Non-BP’s may be less likely to do so. I say “may be” less likely because I suspect that alcoholism and other such behavioral adaptations might be more prevalent in Non-BP’s than in the general population because these are behavioral adaptations that act on the pain directly, yet these adaptations are ineffective and may create other interpersonal and personal consequences. It is possible that (as in the dogs) there is no behavioral adaptation that has any effective impact on the suffering. You feel stuck and there’s no way out. That, in effect, requires that you “lie down on the grid” and accept your punishment. The trust and presumed love you felt in the beginning of the relationship is exposed as ineffective, and you feel trapped in pain. I think this is a mild form of PTSD. The point is, if you can’t do anything to get you out of pain, you’re stuck, helpless and hopeless. I called this book When Hope is Not Enough for a reason, and here’s where my intentions become clear: you can’t hope for a better and more effective solution when everything you have tried thus far doesn’t relieve the suffering and pain you feel. You stop pressing or depressing any lever because neither state relieves the pain; thus, you’re stuck in pain and suffering. However, unlike Stockholm Syndrome, I can offer you a way out of learned helplessness. The way out is through the application of tools that you can apply to the BPD dynamic that can break you out of hopelessness. And unlike psychodynamic explanations, which can take years, this escape window can take much less time. All one has to do is dedicate oneself and practice.
This form of PTSD or learned helplessness hurts and feels as if you are trapped in a cage of conditioned behavior. Yet, if you learn and apply the tools in this book, you can change the BPD dynamic and take your life back. My point is to try and introduce a new dynamic in which you can open the escape window. I have seen in this work in my life and, possibly more importantly, in the lives of the people on my list. There’s hope, but real hope only comes through the application of skills that can escape learned helplessness and PTSD forever.
From Science Daily:
Possible Genetic Causes Of Borderline Personality Disorder Identified
ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2008) — According to the National Institute of Mental Health, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is more common than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and is estimated to affect 2 percent of the population. In a new study, a University of Missouri researcher and Dutch team of research collaborators found that genetic material on chromosome nine was linked to BPD features, a disorder characterized by pervasive instability in moods, interpersonal relationships, self-image and behavior, and can lead to suicidal behavior, substance abuse and failed relationships.
“The results of this study hopefully will bring researchers closer to determining the genetic causes of BPD and may have important implications for treatment programs in the future,” said Timothy Trull, professor of psychology in the MU College of Arts and Science. “Localizing and identifying the genes that influence the development of BPD will not only be important for scientific purposes, but will also have clinical implications.”
In an ongoing study of the health and lifestyles of families with twins in the Netherlands, Trull and colleagues examined 711 pairs of siblings and 561 parents to identify the location of genetic traits that influences the manifestation of BPD. The researchers conducted a genetic linkage analysis of the families and identified chromosomal regions that could contain genes that influence the development of BPD. Trull found the strongest evidence for a genetic influence on BPD features on chromosome nine.
In a previous study, Trull and research colleagues examined data from 5,496 twins in the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to assess the extent of genetic influence on the manifestation of BPD features. The research team found that 42 percent of variation in BPD features was attributable to genetic influences and 58 percent was attributable to environmental influences, and this was consistent across the three countries. In addition, Trull and colleagues found that there was no significant difference in heritability rates between men and women, and that young adults displayed more BPD features then older adults.
“We were able to provide precise estimates of the genetic influence on BPD features, test for differences between the sexes, and determine if our estimates were consistent across three different countries,” Trull said. “Our results suggest that genetic factors play a major role in individual differences of borderline personality disorder features in Western society.”
Well, well, well… I don’t know why but apparently I continue to be a subject at WTO. Weird. I posted about this a few days ago. I’ve been out of touch with the blog for a few days, while I do family stuff and take care of my email list. I really admire the people on my list; they do a great job of being both honest and validating with one another – while at the same time providing constructive advice to one another.
Boundaries… I’ve posted about boundaries many times before. I think boundaries are one of the most misunderstood concepts in the non-BP/BP relationship. While it is difficult to be a parent of anyone (much less someone with BPD) and provide no guidance to your child – I mean, it is natural to want to provide some advice and guidance to children – boundaries in the sense that many people on the Internet understand them are not effective in an emotional situation. Now, WAIT! Actually boundaries ARE effective… OK, how can I say they aren’t effective and are effective at the same time?
The major problem with boundaries is that most of the Nons out there believe that boundaries are something to “control” or “moderate” their BP’s behavior. This concept is absolutely ineffective and untrue. Boundaries created for other people (whether they have BPD or not) are not effective – especially when the other person has a general fear of judgment like those with BPD. Those types of boundaries are not really boundaries at all – they are RULES for the behavior of another person. They will not work in emotional situations.
Boundaries that DO work are those you set for yourself with respect to other people’s behavior. In other words, boundaries that guide your OWN behavior are effective ones. If you say to someone, “I will not go to a resuarant with you if you are drunk” (for example), what you are really doing is setting a boundary that limits/affects your OWN behavior given certain conditions. That type of boundary is effective because you, as a non-BP, have complete control over it. You can choose NOT to do something given a set of conditions.
I would encourage you to examine what you ”boundaries” you have in place and see if they are rules for other people’s behaviors or if they are actual personal boundaries that manage your own behavior and reactions. If they are the former, I expect you will end up being frustrated quickly. If they are the later, then you can find some peace when they are applied to a given situation. This statement isn’t meant to imply that someone with BPD will automatically accept your application of personal boundaries (to yourself). No, they might rage at you or try and convince you to do otherwise (i.e. go to the restaurant even if they are drunk), but you are the master of your own behavior and you can always be firm and say, “No.”
 I stumbled across this children’s book, An Umbrella for Alex, which is a book for kids trying to understand mom’s BPD behavior. Like I said, I haven’t bought it or read it. Maybe one of you would like to and drop me a message as to how effective it is (or is not). I know my kids know when (as my daughter puts it) “mommy’s doing it” – which I know she means that mom is acting an an impulsive BPD-like fashion.
I’m a little wary of the book though. It comes from the Personality Disorder Awareness Network (PDAN) of which I have never heard. It would seem that in my travels around the BP-world that I would have come into contact with them in some shape or form. The other thing that puzzles me is that on their resources page they have several links about divorcing and leaving a person with BPD. I know this is a reality to many Non-BPs, I’m just not sure what the attitude of the above book is in that respect.
One positive thing is this statement on their “About PDAN” page:
Our mission is to encourage, sponsor, and financially support projects related to assisting those in relationships with individuals with BPD. We encourage an atmosphere of respect and compassion for those suffering with the illness, while acknowledging the emotional distress and impairment in everyday functioning of those individuals in relationships with someone with BPD.
I would agree with that, I suppose. Here is a book review of the book.
After reviewing Mrs. Treasure’s article on BPD and Demonic Possession, I decided to read at least some of her other posts at AssociatedContent.com. I wanted to find out if she had posted more on Borderline Personality Disorder and why she decided to post on the disorder in the first place. I think she must believe that her new husband’s ex-wife has the disorder, because she wrote another article called “10 Ways to Handle a Difficult Ex? Focus on Borderline Personality Disorder” which refers to the person with BPD as “she” throughout. I’m not going to agree or disagree with the content of that article.
I also found an article called “Spiritual Glasses to Understand the Difficult Child” which was described with the question: When you get frustrated with your child, what is the most effective discipline? I was intrigued and decided to read the article.
I have to say, I was surprised by the wisdom in some of her comments. I find it interesting that what she says about children can be applied directly to people with BPD. Consider the following:
If your child is a chronic liar, parents worry and panic. The spiritual glasses allow you to see a very insecure child with poor self concept or image. Are your expectations of him too high? Why does he feel worthless? Is he bullied around by friends or older siblings?
I get more searches on this blog for “lying,” “liars,” “chronic liars,” etc. than about anything else. (Actually to be honest the most searches I get are about “celebrities with BPD” or some variant of that, but lying-related searches come in a close second.) I’d like to take her words and apply them to BPD and replace the words “spiritual glasses” with “emotional glasses.” I think if you look at a chronic liar, which many people with BPD are, you will find that one motivation for lying is a poor self image, feeling worthless or insecurity. These concepts are interrelated and spring from shame. People with BPD do have a poor self-image. Even though many nons report that their loved one with BPD is selfish or narcissistic, in reality people with BPD actually hate themselves. This feeling arises from shame as well, but the shame also arises from emotional invalidation. Mrs. Treasures doesn’t really provide a prescription for dealing with a liar, other than not to label (judge) the child as a “difficult child” right away and try to understand them and set proper expectations. The same can be said of a non’s relationship with a BP. Judging their behavior as “difficult” right away or setting expectations too high can invalidate the BP’s emotional responses. This sets up an “invalidating environment” for the child’s emotions and the effects of an invalidating environment are summarized by Dr. Marsha Linehan:
[The] effect of an invalidating environment, especially when basic emotions such as fear, anger, and sadness are invalidated, is that a person in such an environment does not learn when to trust her own emotional responses as valid reflections of individual and situational events. Thus, she is unable to validate and trust herself… If communication of negative emotions is punished, as it often is in invalidating environment, then a response of shame follows experiencing the intense emotion in the first place and expressing it publicly in the second.[i]
If a person is unable to trust herself, she can not validate herself and a “response of shame follows” emotional experiences. That is one pathway to BPD. If you punish a child for feeling inadequate, for example, if the child is lying to you because he wants to make himself feel better about himself, then you are invalidating his emotional responses.
Mrs. Treasures also say this about temper tantrums:
For your younger children showing tantrums and hitting other siblings, the spiritual glasses permit you to see a child struggling to deal with his immature emotions. The child’s frustration is his inability to communicate his feelings and needs to his siblings.
Again, if we substitute “emotional glasses” for “spiritual glasses” and “BP” for “child,” I believe she is accurately describing the state of someone with BPD. People with BPD are emotionally immature. It’s not their fault; it’s just that they were not raised in an emotionally supportive environment. They feel that by feeling emotions intensely, they are wrong and should be punished. Again, the shame comes into play. They do have an “inability to communicate [their] feelings.” Because of the invalidating environment, the BP becomes unable to trust her own emotions and becomes frustrated and angry. THAT is what fuels rage more than anything.
OK, now what do you do to counter-act an invalidating environment (with both children and BPs)? You learn to validate their emotional responses. I have quite a few examples of validation techniques on this site and if you follow this link, you can read about validation.
[i] Linehan, Marsha, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder, pg 72
I often peruse the web for articles and posts about dealing with people with Borderline Personality Disorder and what I usually find is incorrect and misguided. I recently stumbled upon a post that can be found here:
http://www.helium.com/tm/339437/individuals-suffering-borderline-personality
In which the author gives some insight and advice about “dealing with” someone with Borderline Personality Disorder. I’d like to look at her advice by excerpting some of her text and then offer a little commentary.
First of all, she says this:
Individuals suffering from borderline personality disorder are very self-destructive and they have great difficulty forming any good relationships. A deep-seeded fear of abandonment is behind every wayward action and prolonged mood swing. It’s [sic] victims are mainly women who show frequent displays of inappropriate anger and who exhibit forms of self-mutilation. They also act on impulse, without regards to consequences and than [sic] hold others responsible for their actions. They are sexually permissive and may indulge in binge eating and drug abuse. Victims of this disorder may shop lift. Hell bent on harming themselves, they live with no discipline or boundary.
While this characterization is generally true, it suffers from what wikipedia calls “weasel words”. Basically, the words that are used slant the information toward being extremely judgmental. What I mean is the use of the words “great difficulty forming any good relationships,” “every wayward action and prolonged mood swing,” “show frequent displays of inappropriate anger,” and “they live with no discipline or boundary” all show us that the author is judgmental toward the sufferer. The idea of “prolonged mood swing” is incorrect as well, since the “moods” of a person with BPD generally last only hours. Also, the idea that “they are sexually permissive” MAY be true for some of the sufferers, but not for all. The idea that a “fear of abandonment is behind EVERY wayward action” is also incorrect. Much of the “actions” are motivated by pain relief and/or shame. Use of the words “no discipline” betrays the authors true feelings about people with the disorder and tells me she doesn’t understand the disorder very well (see below on “Tough Love”).
When Hope is Not EnoughGet the Non-BP book that has helped hundreds! The author goes on to say:
Group therapy can resolve self-destructive behaviors. These individuals learn better from their peers because of their resistance to authority. Impulse behavior can be curtailed in this same setting.
Which is basically wrong. Group therapy does work (especially in the context of DBT), but not for the reasons that the author suggests. It is not a “resistance to authority” that drives the effectiveness of group therapy. Instead, seeing that one is not the only sufferer and having the ability to support one another normalizes the disorder. You are not just the broken, shameful person that you feel you are. Interestingly, many people with BPD will criticize others in the group and report that they are not as “crazy” as those people are.
The thing I have the most problem with is this:
Tough love may be needed from family members and loved ones before the person asks for assistance.
This statement is completely false and possibly harmful. Here is the text of a post of mine in the ATSTP group which addresses Tough Love:
Depending on the actual problem with your son(s) the idea of “tough love” might be the worst thing for him (them). While it seems to work for substance abuse, tough love can be an awful mixture for those with ERD-like issues. The problem comes down to the “invalidating environment” as Marsha Linehan puts it. Tough love will invalidate a person’s basic feelings and lead to shame and the feeling of “brokenness”. I have seen this first-hand with one of my daughter’s friends. This friend is 16 now and is a classic BPD/ERD case. She has been kicked out of several “lock down” facilities. Recently her mother sent her to a “tough love”/boot camp. It was a total disaster for the kid and for the family.
A better approach IMO, is emotional validation + a sense of personal responsibility. This combination is built through letting the person know that feelings are not wrong or right, they just ARE. The second half comes through building mastery over their behavior associated with feelings. Bad feelings just exist. This is important because often a person with such issues will use behaviors (like drug abuse or cutting or raging) to make the bad feelings go away as quickly as possible. They need to learn to tolerate the distress and behave in an effective manner. Once this new behavior/reaction to feelings is practiced, they can eventually build mastery over the behaviors. This works backward to help quell the feelings.
It seems that most parents believe that emotional validation = “giving in” (or agreeing with the child or “poor discipline” or whatever). This is NOT the case. It’s difficult for me to express this more firmly. Remember the word “emotional” is important. If you validate invalid behavior, you are enabling. It is important to separate in your mind the emotions (which are natural) from the behavior (which can be painful to all involved). If that separation can be communicated to the person with ERD, it can be worked with. It is difficult, but possible.
Unfortunately, tough love is not the answer.
I wanted to start re-posting on my blog and the subject of the day is parenting style. I have noticed that there seems to be a conflict between the parenting styles of a person with BPD and that of a non’s spouse. It seems that (maybe because of the invalidation that the BP has experienced) the BP is likely to be harsher with punishments and more likely to invalidate a child’s feelings. I don’t know if this is because the BP sees the emotional volatility reflected in a child’s behavior and is guilty about it or because they never learned to deal with a child’s emotional swings in a way that is validating.
My wife can be very validating and understand at times (even more than me); however, she also takes the “life is hard” and “get over it/suck it up” route with our children at times. I don’t know if you other nons have experienced the same thing, but I see a lot of that in my Google Email Group. If you’d like to discuss this further, you can leave a comment here or, better, request to join the Anything to Stop the Pain Google Email Group by going here:
http://groups.google.com/group/ATSTPGroup
In this study, researchers posit that traits associated with BPD are inherited (impulsivity and emotional regulation). Here is a quote from the abstract:
The effect of genes on the development of BPD is likely substantial. The effect of common family environment may be close to zero.
While the study doesn’t conclude that BPD is 100% inherited, it does point to certain genetic factors in the BPD adaptive behaviors (or maladaptive).
The main point of posting this is to chip away at the myth that BPD and other personality disorders are all the “fault” of parenting or abusive environments. One of the big problems that I have seen in the social, psychological and medical community is that when a child is identified as borderline, the parents immediately come under suspicion as being abusive or neglectful. This can cause more consternation and confusion on the part of the parents who are already dealing with a serious mental illness and the issues that come with it.
There is a common myth concerning BPD. That myth is that BPD is completely and only caused by abusive environments. Invalidating environments can be a contributing cause – but these invalidating environments do not have to be abusive. If a certain child is emotionally unstable, sometimes the parents’ reaction is “cut it out” or “get over it”. The problem with this approach is that the child feels how they feel regardless of their adpative abilities (or lack thereof). In other words, the child may feel scared or angry even if there is no external reason to feel that way. These feelings (or the inability to control them) CAN be genetic – it might be that that is just the way that they ARE.
That being said, BPD is not a sure thing or a life sentence. The sufferer can learn skills to adpat to their emotional states. Their families can also learn these skills and, if they do, they can stop contributing (even unknowingly) to the borderlines problems.
It is saddening that personality disorders (particularly Borderline and Schizotypal) are classified as Axis II disorders when other disorders (like Bipolar and Schizophernia) are Axis I. Why does it matter? It matters because of access to mental health care is restricted due to insurance coverage limitations.
|
Loading ...
