Generic but great advice: You have to totally step outside of yourself

[VIDEO: "What is parental alienation?"]

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald

We can expand that to 'emotional intelligence' as well or even 'relationship intelligence'. But as I've dealt with my own stuff here, it seems to me a key for ALL of us to deal with our totally different but entirely identical situations is to do the above.  The one idea of course is "yours", the one you came here with, the one that got you here. The other is your pwBPD or just plain old SO's idea. A harder one to identify to be sure as you have to step TOTALLY outside yourself and accommodate thoughts and perceptions about yourself that are very uncomfortable. But if you can look at you like a third-person and in fact look at you EXACTLY as your partner does/did (the negative ones I mean) you can now formulate the new and opposed idea. It is pretty easy to get to if you just remember all the 'mean' or 'hurtful' things they said about you and actually listen to that little voice in your head that called you on your stuff that you silenced each time. Guess what those are; the other idea. The Other Idea. Right in front of you all this time. Embrace it because it is, if not Reality, A Reality.

And as our friend Fitzgerald, not a dumb guy by any means , points out the goal with those two likely entirely diametrically opposed ideas is to still function. Not to contrast, compare and decide which is "right" or which is "fair'. Just to totally get that they BOTH are and they both exist equally in the universe. And then my friends is when we can move back to being able to function. And take action (which is only possible to a functioning person).

Sorry for this sort of non-topic topic but i read that quote today and I found it so personally relevant to my journey here I thought it might help others here going through similar things.

[1stTimer]

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald

We can expand that to 'emotional intelligence' as well or even 'relationship intelligence'. But as I've dealt with my own stuff here, it seems to me a key for ALL of us to deal with our totally different but entirely identical situations is to do the above.  The one idea of course is "yours", the one you came here with, the one that got you here. The other is your pwBPD or just plain old SO's idea. A harder one to identify to be sure as you have to step TOTALLY outside yourself and accommodate thoughts and perceptions about yourself that are very uncomfortable. But if you can look at you like a third-person and in fact look at you EXACTLY as your partner does/did (the negative ones I mean) you can now formulate the new and opposed idea. It is pretty easy to get to if you just remember all the 'mean' or 'hurtful' things they said about you and actually listen to that little voice in your head that called you on your stuff that you silenced each time. Guess what those are; the other idea. The Other Idea. Right in front of you all this time. Embrace it because it is, if not Reality, A Reality.

And as our friend Fitzgerald, not a dumb guy by any means , points out the goal with those two likely entirely diametrically opposed ideas is to still function. Not to contrast, compare and decide which is "right" or which is "fair'. Just to totally get that they BOTH are and they both exist equally in the universe. And then my friends is when we can move back to being able to function. And take action (which is only possible to a functioning person).

Sorry for this sort of non-topic topic but i read that quote today and I found it so personally relevant to my journey here I thought it might help others here going through similar things.

[pearlsw]

Hey 1stTimer,

Okay, I'll bite... .Why does this quote personally speak to you and your situation? Can you spell it out a bit more please?

I know that having empathy for my SO helps, but I have also have to remember to watch out what is best for my life.

wishing you all the best, pearl.

[Radcliff]

1stTimer, let me know if I'm on the same page as you.  I have noticed that my wife's reality and mine are sometimes very different.  I have, in fact, been so upset at times that it is difficult to function.  Are you saying that the goal here, according to the quote, is to acknowledge, observe, that both perspectives exist, without necessarily trying to reconcile them, and to simply continue to function?  If so, this is interesting, because it sounds a bit like mindfulness, observing without judgement.

WW

[1stTimer]

Why does this quote personally speak to you and your situation? Can you spell it out a bit more please?

I know that having empathy for my SO helps, but I have also have to remember to watch out what is best for my life.

I guess I can answer both questions at once. As you probably know I had to (with some gentle and ungentle prodding from Skip) learn to really step back and look at my own behavior and try to look at my 'SO' without judgement and in the process had some epiphanies about mine. I came to a point where I no longer really judged her or needed explanations or apologies and really am/was in a place where I only wanted to let her know I understood how my behavior affected here. That might sound like the answer to your question but it is not it is just where I started

A couple things happened recently; I found a couple of old emails I was going to send (THANK GOD I DID NOT) and I did not RECOGNIZE the reality of what I said then. I did now know what 'he' was even talking about. Anymore than she would have.

Then last night someone suggested I do something for her that sort of triggered me right back to my original resentments which were, as I read them, quite valid. I'd sort of put them on the backburner as I tried to come around to her.

So the epiphany and the answer to " I have also have to remember to watch out what is best for my life" is that I came full circle after having come full circle. In other words it wasn't that I realized I needed to take her reality into account that got me to F. Scott. It was when I realized I needed to take my reality into account after her reality had become my reality.

And I'm sitting there reading what I wrote, AFTER having come to her perspective/point of view and almost reading mine for the first time (as if it was the alternate reality). I know it all gets freaky but basically I ended up outside of the whole thing, looking down at two realties which overlap in places but in other places simply cannot exist in the same universe but for me DO NOW. I coined a new word for it: Empathy

I have to watch out for what is best in my life, but I have to watch out for what is best in my SO's life, but I have to remember to watch out what is best for my life, while rememberng to watch out for what is best for my SO's life without giving up what is best for my life and so on.

Holding two conflicting realities as truth so you can function since in the end 'reality' and 'truth' are ambiguous but functioning is not.

Nope I have not been indulging

[1stTimer]

Are you saying that the goal here, according to the quote, is to acknowledge, observe, that both perspectives exist, without necessarily trying to reconcile them, and to simply continue to function? 

Damn I need to learn to become more eloquent. Yes

I might go a step further; not to 'simply continue to function' but 'in order to be ABLE to function'. A subtle but oh so critical distinction.

[1stTimer]

1stTimer, let me know if I'm on the same page as you.  I have noticed that my wife's reality and mine are sometimes very different.  I have, in fact, been so upset at times that it is difficult to function.  Are you saying that the goal here, according to the quote, is to acknowledge, observe, that both perspectives exist, without necessarily trying to reconcile them, and to simply continue to function?  If so, this is interesting, because it sounds a bit like mindfulness, observing without judgement.

Here is one reason that gets so interesting; if you don't take it that far then, even when being 'reasonable', your point of view is that you are right and coming from reality but for your wife's/SO's sake you will 'accommodate' their (wrong) opinion. Because you love them. And you (not saying you specifically WW) become unwittingly condescending and probably often wonder why they are not falling over with appreciation at your expansiveness. I guess where the epiphany came for me is when I re-read my own position after 'living' in hers and having a Holy S*** moment of them both being right. And man that could not help but affect some real communication could it?

[once removed]

its really good advice, 1stTimer.

several tools taught here helped me to start to hold those two opposing ideas and still function, as well as to see myself and my role in conflict more objectively... .if i can also see the other partys perspective (i dont have to agree with it) more objectively, and put myself in their shoes, it actually makes everything clearer... .im not focusing quite as much on how i feel, or projecting/ascribing motives to the other person.

Wisemind really helped with the opposing ideas, and arriving at more mature, solutions oriented, conflict resolution. the communication skills also helped with my delivery.

Listening with Empathy really helped me see the other persons perspective, even if i dont fully agree with it or see things the same way.

the Karpman Drama Triangle helped me better see my role, and where i can switch gears.

i dont think any of it is intuitive or easy. i think with practice, it starts to come more naturally.

[1stTimer]

even if i dont fully agree with it

Well that is the part where it really gets amazing. The agreeing part is sort of a booby trap. I mean I don't agree with death or taxes :| As soon as you can put aside the 'agree with it' (does not coincide with how I see it or want it) and just see that it... .is... .then it all gets a lot easier.

[once removed]

it is a tricky balance.

what im talking about is that when it comes to conflict resolution, we want to avoid validating the invalid.

for example, lets say my partners perspective is that my boundaries around my privacy are not just cruel, abusive, withholding, secretive, make her feel left out, whatever, but that im deliberately hurting her.

its a real perspective. i can dismiss it (as i did repeatedly in my relationship), and that wont help. better, i can empathize and validate her feelings. try to see it as she does. i can question my own wisdom (at the heart of the karpman drama triangle is the need to be "right".

what i dont necessarily want to do is validate the idea that im deliberately hurting her. if i hone in on that, and start JADEing, it can open a whole can of worms.

[1stTimer]

what i dont necessarily want to do is validate the idea that im deliberately hurting her. if i hone in on that, and start JADEing, it can open a whole can of worms.

That is interesting. Is there a way to accept that as her reality without validating it? Or to accept it as her reality and not your reality and then try to 'function' around that? I mean don't you need to validate she feels like that is reality so in some part of the universe it in fact is? AND validate it is not yours? Before you can try to fix it. Maybe there is a 'thing' you do inadvertently that makes it feel like reality to her that you could modify which would allow you to keep the same boundaries without her feeling like it is deliberate? I get at a certain point it just becomes wordsmithing but if 'validating' means accepting and acknowledging that someone else experiences what you do a certain way wouldn't you by definition have to validate EVERYTHING before you have a hope of addressing/solving it? Not as in 'yes I do deliberately hurt you' but 'yes I understand your experience is that I am delibarately hurting you. What could I do so you don't feel that way? What EXACTLY is it I do that makes you feel that way. I'm willing to change many things about HOW I set my boundaries so you don't feel I'm being cruel or abusive or secretive' etc etc. I'm just shooting in the dark here as I'm clearly not experienced at conflict resolution.

[Radcliff]

I like once removed's point about not validating the invalid.  One example of this is abuse.  If our partner is extremely verbally abusive, for example, we do not want to validate this, even to ourselves.  But I like 1stTimer's distinction about acceptance.  In the verbal abuse example, we may accept that our partner exists in a reality where verbal abuse is OK.  And by accepting, I don't mean we accept the abuse.  We accept that we cannot change them, so we enact boundaries to protect ourselves (like leaving to go on a walk) using our own behavior.

WW

[Skip]

with some gentle and ungentle prodding from Skip, learn to really step back and look at my own behavior and try to look at my 'SO' without judgement and in the process had some epiphanies about mine.

Sorry to be so tenacious... .I really wanted to pull you to your center. Your center is quite impressive. 

I know it all gets freaky but basically I ended up outside of the whole thing, looking down at two realties which overlap in places but in other places simply cannot exist in the same universe but for me DO NOW. I coined a new word for it: Empathy  

This is brilliant. This is often described as the inner critic... .our ability to rise above the situation and look down and the dynamics of both parties.  You are catching onto this quickly - faster than I grasped it.

You will be amazed at how well we can read other people when we try. I don't mean predict their behavior, but rather understand how everything makes perfect sense to them just as it does with us.

[1stTimer]

I like once removed's point about not validating the invalid.  One example of this is abuse.  If our partner is extremely verbally abusive, for example, we do not want to validate this, even to ourselves.  But I like 1stTimer's distinction about acceptance.  In the verbal abuse example, we may accept that our partner exists in a reality where verbal abuse is OK.  And by accepting, I don't mean we accept the abuse.  We accept that we cannot change them, so we enact boundaries to protect ourselves (like leaving to go on a walk) using our own behavior.
WW

Well we/I might be devolving into the metaphsycial here but; I think you can't hold the concept of validating without holding that everything is valid. if by that you mean accepting and acknowledging that othe viewpoints exist. Then we have VALUES. But until we validate we can't make any real decisions or function. So we don't have to 'VALUE' a man who wants to put Jews in concentration camps (for whatever his rationale), or a man that beats his wife (ditto) or a woman that cheats on her SO (ditto). My (admittedly) limited take on validating is it is saying "I get you" not "I get you and it is ok". You can say "I get you and let's work it out" or "I get where you are coming from I don't agree let's find a way to co-exist and be kind to each other because our core values are in sync even if not entirely on the same continuum'. But before validation there are principles. Genocide, spousal abuse, infidelity, no (or, maybe for you and I reject you).

So "you feel I'm intentionally trying to hurt you by putting up boundaries so you lash out at me verbally or you withdraw your affection" is validation that you can "function" with since it is within your value system (even if lashing out is on the outer end of the specturm of your value system).   "you feel I'm intentionally trying to hurt you by putting up boundaries so you lash out at me verbally or you withdraw your affection" so you have sex with my brother or  "you feel I'm intentionally trying to hurt you by putting up boundaries so you lash out at me verbally or you withdraw your affection" so you beat me you can still validate (they are true and they are true for THEM) but reject in your life, as acceptable actions, as outside your value system and in some case actively resist those actions anywhere (genocide, spousal abuse, etc). The difference is in one case you've validated and decided to include that person inside your life.

Again might be digressing into sophmoric word games here, I'm trying not to. I'm saying the ultimate manifestatoin of validation is validating (it exists in someone else's mind as acceptable and reality) everything. And then choosing AFTER validation whether your value their reality and they are in keeping with your principles. But you can't really 'not validate the invalid' as it begs the whole question of validaty in the first place.

Again; not indugling here

[Radcliff]

Let me try to simplify.  With a pwBPD, perhaps the most useful validation skill is validating emotions.  The other person's emotions are always valid.  We can get a long way by validating their emotions.  When it comes to positions on an issue, respecting their position, even if you don't agree with it, is a form of validation. 

When we talk about validating the invalid, here are some of the biggies in a BPD relationship:
* taking more than our fair share of responsibility; agreeing that it's all our fault if it isn't
* taking our spouse's side against our FOO, our children, or others inappropriately
* accepting that abuse is OK or that we somehow deserved it
* agreeing to facts that our pwBPD has made up to fit their emotions.

Note that in all of the cases above, we can achieve a useful thing called partial validation by validating our pwBPD's emotions.

And yes, I would agree that principles guide our validation, or refusal to validate.  In the situations relevant to our BPD relationships, respect and safety are two of the big principles at play.

WW

[1stTimer]

That all makes practical sense and especially with this caveat:

Note that in all of the cases above, we can achieve a useful thing called partial validation by validating our pwBPD's emotions.

[pearlsw]

Let me try to simplify.  With a pwBPD, perhaps the most useful validation skill is validating emotions.  The other person's emotions are always valid.  We can get a long way by validating their emotions.  When it comes to positions on an issue, respecting their position, even if you don't agree with it, is a form of validation. 

When we talk about validating the invalid, here are some of the biggies in a BPD relationship:
* taking more than our fair share of responsibility; agreeing that it's all our fault if it isn't
* taking our spouse's side against our FOO, our children, or others inappropriately
* accepting that abuse is OK or that we somehow deserved it
* agreeing to facts that our pwBPD has made up to fit their emotions.

WW

Hey WW,

Thanks for this helpful reminder! I'm pretty lucky in that the first three never happened for me, and well, actually, I did not agree to #4 either, false versions of reality. But I tell ya, it was like wrestling an alligator at times to hold onto reality!

It is so important to keep your emotional center and stay clear with such strong headwinds blowing.

Thanks for the clarity and insights,

~pearl.