BPDFamily.com

I am finding it frustrating when I attempt to validate or show any empathy.    My BPDw often talks to me about her frustrations or problems with things I do or anyone in her family/friend circle.

I say something to the effect of “That must be frustrating to not be listened to/have that happen” or “That would hurt to have that happen”

I am often berated in response by being told that I’m not her therapist.    I don’t probe further in any of these conversations- simply saying “That seems like an upsetting problem” and I am shut down with “You’re acting like a therapist!  This makes you a narcissist!  It’s all about you and your desire to be seen as empathetic! You’re so full of sh*t!  No one wants to hear your thoughts on this!”

How do I validate when validation statements are the cause for being accused of being a narcissist only wanting people to think that I’m caring?

Hey Boogie74!

I feel you, I have been in the same place with my BPD boyfriend. He detected every attempt I made to validate his emotions and he was irritated by it in the same way (calling it a therapist trick).

Personally, I tried to shorten the sentences I used as much as possible when I validate and stick only to the emotion at hand. (Ex: Instead of saying "It is normal to be angry in xyz situation you are currently living", I just say "Yeah, it's frustrating".) It did help and I realized that, most of the time, when my BPD boyfriend was talking about his frustrations, he just wanted to be heard, listened to. He already knew what I was trying to validate. Once he vented out about his feelings and the emotional charge is lower, I ask about my role: what can I do in this regard? Sometimes, I can't do anything, sometimes it's to help find solutions, sometimes it's just to give him time to process his feelings.

In any case, like you did, if the emotional charge is too high, do not engage. Most of the time, it can make things worse, in my experience.

Have you read the book Loving Someone with Bordeline Personality Disorder by Shari Y. Manning? It explains in lenght about validation and gives many examples of how to use it in different contexts to make sure you don't always use the same kind of sentences that are easily recognizable, and thus, can fall flat. It helped me a lot!

Sounds like you do want to validate genuinely, which is a good foundation. You've gathered data that whatever you were trying with her, wasn't working. So, you're ready for a new approach. Close so far?

One idea is to pivot from validation statements to validation words, tones, body language, and/or sounds. Sometimes you'll see the phrase here: Less is more.

She seems to be reacting to, perhaps, either the length of the validation statement, the structure, or both. (Or, theoretically, something else, but experimentation with length and structure can show you if that's the case).

Wonder how it would go to REALLY decrease the # of words... and transfer that thought and energy in to genuine warm tones, body language, and single or two-to-three word "I'm tracking" type utterances. I'm thinking...

Instead of "having to describe" that "you hear what she is saying and it would be frustrating"...

Let's take it down to:

"Ugh babe... sucks"

or

"Ugh..."

or

"No she didn't!"

or

"No way..."


and with all of those, tone (warm and "with"/"together"/"joining") and body language (mildly incredulous at how other people act... NOT how she acts... joining together with her) may be incredibly crucial.

This may sound strange, but picture, perhaps, someone at the hairdressers, unloading to the barber about their crazy boss. The barber doesn't say: "Joe, you are completely right... anyone in your situation would be justified in feeling frustrated and upset"... even though that is true. The barber says "No way..." "OMG, did he really..." "Ugh..."

There is a sense that the barber is there to listen and sort of track along and join with the frustration, without having to be explicit that (a) the barber definitely supports the client, and (b) there is any kind of therapeutic or "correct" relationship. It's just one person listening 99% of the time in that specific interaction* and tacitly joining with the speaker, without having to explain verbally why he's joining with the speaker. It's the actions -- of tone, body language, and brief utterances -- that convey the "with-ness" and "on the same team" message.

Curious if really paring down the words, and upping the genuine "with-ness" body language/non-verbal comms, might make a difference for you.

*I wouldn't necessarily recommend this stance for all your interactions. It may take developing a certain radar, if you haven't already, to pinpoint when it's crucial to go to 99% warm listening/minimal verbal, and when more "average" communication is workable.

have you considered switching to validating questions?   


would become -  'what do you think was going on when that happened?'   or 'why wouldn't X be listening then?'



might switch to 'do you feel hurt about it?'

you have to play with it and put it in your own words.    something that you would normally say.     some of my best practiced validation attempts fell flat because they sounded rehearsed, practiced and patronizing.   some of my off the cuff quick validations ~worked~ because they sounded like me, and like I really meant it.