|
Title: Validation question? Post by: hope81 on December 19, 2016, 04:03:14 AM Hello,
I understand the theory of this and agree it is effective with my own BPD partner, especially for short term resolution. But what if you can't validate because what they are saying or doing is unhealthy for them and those around them and simply unrealistic and making you unhappy. I just think that validating in these situations is going to give the wrong message in the long term? and keep the chaos going for them and those around them. I just think sometimes a reality check is needed and it should be discussed, as they don't have the ability to identify and resolve there own issues themselves due to their traits, let along consider how others are affected. Title: Re: Validation question? Post by: teapay on December 19, 2016, 07:23:48 AM According the Teach Payoff principles, there are 4 general principles of validation:
1. Always validate the positive. This means the non should validate any of the BPD’s things (e.g. actions, feelings, thoughts etc.) that are positive and bring positive consequences. 2. Validate the neutral. This means it is acceptable for the non to validate things that are neutral to the BPD and the non. 3. Do not invalidate the neutral negative. This means the non should not validate or invalidate things that are neutral to the non, but might be negative to the BPD. The BPD should be forced the take responsibility for any negative consequences of their actions. 4. Invalidate the negative. The means that the non should a) explicitly invalidate any BPD things which would have negative consequences for the non and b) the non should enforce boundaries to prevent negative consequences to the non and c) the non should institute negative consequences for any BPD actions. Title: Re: Validation question? Post by: livednlearned on December 22, 2016, 02:59:01 PM Thanks for writing out the Teach Payoff principles, teapay. I hadn't seen those before -- super helpful.
hope81, what are some of the situations that concern you? I wonder if SET statements might be more effective (SET = support, empathy, truth). I find in some situations, responses require seT with an emphasis on the truth, especially when the behaviors are particularly harmful. LnL Title: Re: Validation question? Post by: Skip on December 22, 2016, 03:46:05 PM But what if you can't validate because what they are saying or doing is unhealthy for them and those around them and simply unrealistic and making you unhappy. I think it is better to work with specifics than to generalize. I think it would help to think first - do not invalidate - and then - be validating. One way to be validating is to be attentive and listen to what a person has to say. Ask questions and say enough so that they feel you really listened to what they had to say. Say you want to think about. Comeback with your thoughts. Much for validating that "no that won't work". |