We don't agreee on the problem

[alembic]

There are two people A, and B.  A and B have a partnership together, that isn't working very well.   A and B both agree that the partnership isn't working well. They just don't agree on what is causing the partnership not to work well.

A thinks that B is unwell, and that this is causing the relationship not to work well. B thinks that A is unwell, and that this is actually what is causing the relationship to fail.

Based on their own view of things, and a lack of improvement over time, A decides to change their strategy of dealing with B.  They unilaterally adopt a new set of techniques for dealing with B.  These techniques improve the relationship significantly.

B notices that A has changed their behaviour. B concludes that A has seen the error of their ways, has changed their beliefs, has come around to B's way of thinking, or has simply just got better from their illness, which is why there is much less conflict.  A thinks that the new strategy has worked, and their new way of dealing with things means they are coping much better with B's anomalous behaviour, even though they still think B is unwell.

How do we decide whether A, B (or both) are unwell? Whether A or B's worldview is more accurate? Isn't the only way to determine this by looking at relationships with C, D, E etc.?  If A gets on well with C D & E, and B also has troubled relationships with C, D, & E, isn't it more likely (although not conclusive) that B is unwell, and that A has just found a good way of coping with it?  You could teach the coping mechanism to  C, D & E as well, and it would probably improve their relationship with B too.  However, if you could teach B some sort of mechanism to cope with A, C, D, & E, then this would potentially be a lot less effort, because it involved teaching 1 person, instead of 4 (or in real life, potentially many more).

So what I was asking was, would A adopting this technique to help the relationship with B have any knock-on benefits for C, D, & E, or would B think ' I've sorted A out now, only C, D & E left to go... .  '.

[RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM SOLVING]

RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM SOLVING This is a high level discussion board for solving ongoing, day-to-day relationship conflicts. Members are welcomed to express frustration but must seek constructive solutions to problems. This is not a place for relationship "stay" or "leave" discussions. Please read the specific guidelines for this group.

[Auspicious]

I see what you are asking, but the answer is (I think ) "we can't know".

And more to the point - our motivation should not be to change the other person, fix them, get them to see things our way. Because if that is our motivation, we are very, very, very likely to fail.

The farthest I would go is that maybe, if our relationship gets better, the other person might become more interested in our opinion or ideas. Might. Eventually. But they might not.

[alembic]

And more to the point - our motivation should not be to change the other person, fix them, get them to see things our way. Because if that is our motivation, we are very, very, very likely to fail.

Hi again Auspicious. Thanks again for the response. I don't have any decent answers to these questions myself, but I'm interested in understanding the questions better.

I still find it difficult to understand how this principle applies, for example, to people being sectioned under the mental health act (in the UK) and being treated for a serious mental illness, sometimes against their will.  Isn't that exactly a case of A, C, D & E deciding that B is ill, and trying to fix them?

[Auspicious]

I still find it difficult to understand how this principle applies, for example, to people being sectioned under the mental health act (in the UK) and being treated for a serious mental illness, sometimes against their will.  Isn't that exactly a case of A, C, D & E deciding that B is ill, and trying to fix them?

I think we're talking about two different things.

Here at bpdfamily, the tools we talk about - like emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] - are tools that you can use to improve your situation.

You aren't her therapist, or her psychiatrist. And you don't have the power to compel treatment.

And even in a forced treatment situation, better outcomes happen when the person himself decides to really seek and invest in treatment. Amador in his book describes cases of people repeatedly experiencing forced treatment, but not making real progress until someone actually made a connection and was able to establish communication.

[alembic]

I still find it difficult to understand how this principle applies, for example, to people being sectioned under the mental health act (in the UK) and being treated for a serious mental illness, sometimes against their will.  Isn't that exactly a case of A, C, D & E deciding that B is ill, and trying to fix them?

I think we're talking about two different things.

Here at bpdfamily, the tools we talk about - like emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] - are tools that you can use to improve your situation.

You aren't her therapist, or her psychiatrist. And you don't have the power to compel treatment.

And even in a forced treatment situation, better outcomes happen when the person himself decides to really seek and invest in treatment. Amador in his book describes cases of people repeatedly experiencing forced treatment, but not making real progress until someone actually made a connection and was able to establish communication.

Hello again,

Yes, I understand that there's a big difference.  But I was trying to understand the principles underlying mental health matters in general, rather than the details of a specific case or application or intervention.  For example, I was thinking of an example where C was B's psychiatrist, D and E other mental health professionals.   Together, they might have the authority to support A's world view, and thereby judge that B was ill, and required urgent treatment.  I understand that A alone would never have this responsibility/right etc.   But despite their professional qualifications, in the end, it seems we are often still talking about comparing the worldviews of B with C, D & E, and making a judgement call based on that.  And sometimes mistakes have been made in the past, I think, even when C D & E were highly qualified. I certainly agree that results are probably going to be better if B volunteers for treatment instead of being forced.

I think I know just a tiny bit about the theory of emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url], and I believe I've seen some effects after it was applied to my wife by therapists on some topics. But I'm not entirely sure that it always worked as intended.  For example, if a therapist said something like 'I understand that you are feeling this way', my wife would sometimes seem to hear it as 'You are justified in feeling this way', and that would be the way it would be remembered forever after.  It may have made her feel better, but perhaps because she interpreted it as support for her worldview, rather than a more neutral statement?  She certainly seemed to interpret it as support in conversations with me, and that perceived support actually sometimes seemed to make it more difficult for her to think about her own behaviour.  Could it be possible that emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] might make it more difficult sometimes for the person to consider their own behaviour? Or does that stage only possibly come later, when they are more healthy?

[Auspicious]

Emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] isn't about facts, it is about feelings. We can't control how someone chooses to receive it.

You don't have to argue with or agree with her worldview.

Has arguing with her worldview worked out well so far?

[alembic]

Emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] isn't about facts, it is about feelings. We can't control how someone chooses to receive it.

You don't have to argue with or agree with her worldview.

Has arguing with her worldview worked out well so far?

Hi again.

Of course, I understand you can't control how someone chooses to receive it. But aren't you choosing to give [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] because you're hoping they're going to receive it in a certain way?   Otherwise, why are you giving it?  I don't think it's because the giving itself is supposed to have an effect on the giver, is it?

I guess I don't quite understand why and how it works, and whether it is likely to always work, or whether with some people it doesn't work, and why? 

I agree, arguing about facts hasn't worked out very well at all. But so far, emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] hasn't had quite the effect I would expect either. But then again, I'm not quite sure what I might expect.

Is emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] purely intended to reduce conflict and anxiety, and make the other person calmer, even though it might also (inadvertently or coincidentally) reinforce worldviews that aren't ultimately helpful to the person?

[Auspicious]

Is emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] purely intended to reduce conflict and anxiety, and make the other person calmer, even though it might also (inadvertently or coincidentally) reinforce worldviews that aren't ultimately helpful to the person?

Not trying to dodge your questions, but ... .  these things are exactly what Amador's book is about!  

I really recommend reading it. Can't really do the ideas therein justice in forum posts.

(And anyway, he's the expert, I'm not   )

[mamachelle]

Hi again.

Of course, I understand you can't control how someone chooses to receive it. But aren't you choosing to give [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] because you're hoping they're going to receive it in a certain way?   Otherwise, why are you giving it?  I don't think it's because the giving itself is supposed to have an effect on the giver, is it?

I guess I don't quite understand why and how it works, and whether it is likely to always work, or whether with some people it doesn't work, and why? 

I agree, arguing about facts hasn't worked out very well at all. But so far, emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] hasn't had quite the effect I would expect either. But then again, I'm not quite sure what I might expect.

Is emotional [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] purely intended to reduce conflict and anxiety, and make the other person calmer, even though it might also (inadvertently or coincidentally) reinforce worldviews that aren't ultimately helpful to the person?

Tradad,

I think you really need to read the book but I wanted to add in a few comments:

[url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]Validation[/b][/url] works for everyone... .  even babies. It empowers both the person on the receiving end and the one doing the [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url]. It can become automatic and it's so easy you can start doing it immediately.

A great book to read is this:

I Don't Have To Make Everything All Better - Gary Lundberg and Joy Lundberg

This book "I am not Sick... . " deals with [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] and then sort of takes it to [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url](squared). It gives very real examples and it also discusses something called the LEAP method.

I am not going to get into it here... .  but I will give you one example of how I was able to take the lessons from this book into the real world.

In fall of 2011, my SS15 started slipping into psychosis. He still has some persistent delusions but they have gotten better since his 2 week hospitalization in March 2012, intense school support, abilify, stress reduction in all areas. He is also on the Autism spectrum and his mother has BPD.

He is a big kid. 6'1" and 220+ lbs. He wore the same sweatshirt rain or cold or heat and the same style shoes for 2 years. As his feet grew, I was able to buy almost the same style shoes one size bigger and he gradually had to start wearing the new shoes because his feet were just too big. He had a shirt he wore on Monday and Friday and all special occasions... .  used the same towel for his weekly shower... .  It was getting pretty hard for me as a parent to keep up with the ever increasing list of things and rules that he was trying to follow to keep his world together in his mind.

One of these psychotic clothes related delusions was that he believed his pants were shrinking and that he was not growing taller. he thought he might be shrinking too... .  not sure. Also thought the desks at school might be shrinking... .  

Before I read Amador's book, I would just say, "ooh SS15 you know you are just growing... .  " He would just sort of go off to his room, not acknowledging me... .  acting like I had just said something that he didn't believe. upset. Then, he would say, well-- mamachelle, this certain pair of pants fits me, look it does, I don't know why but it does. ---But really he was busting at the seams and it was the same brand, cut, style and size as his 4 other pairs  

After the book, and now I really really needed to get him new pants-- when he would say his pants were shrinking I said, "yeah, SS15, I understand why you think that. Let's go get some new pants ok. You can try on the different size pants and we can get you the same size or... .  "

He agreed to go, buying the pants was stressful for him, but we both were able to agree that he needed new pants and his old ones, whether they had shrunk or were just too small... .  were just not working anymore.

So, yeah, the book made a big difference for me, helped my SS15 get the new pants that he had realized he needed but couldn't express rationally why he needed them... .  and also helped me to really understand that when you go directly into conflict with someone who is mentally ill and in a b/w or delusional thinking mode about a particular thing you are going to fail. You have to come to a shared goal and also be able to accept their worldview but not necessarily agree with it, just agree that if you were that person you would feel that way too.

Hope this helps. 

mamachelle

[alembic]

So, yeah, the book made a big difference for me, helped my SS15 get the new pants that he had realized he needed but couldn't express rationally why he needed them... .  and also helped me to really understand that when you go directly into conflict with someone who is mentally ill and in a b/w or delusional thinking mode about a particular thing you are going to fail. You have to come to a shared goal and also be able to accept their worldview but not necessarily agree with it, just agree that if you were that person you would feel that way too.

Hope this helps. 

mamachelle

Hi again mamachelle. Your posts always help, so thanks again for your comments.

It was very interesting to hear about your SS and his issue with his pants.

I suppose delusion affects people different ways.  I mentioned in the other thread that my father died of cancer two years back. He became delusional near to the end, and kept seeing faces in things like carpets and wallpaper, and saw 'ghosts' -people from his past that weren't alive any more.  He always used to tell me about these things, and I would smile, and say don't worry about it - they won't do you any harm. So I suppose that was a form of [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url]. I didn't try to argue with him that these things didn't exist. But on the other hand, they didn't make a great deal of difference to his life. He saw them now and again, commented on it, but was otherwise just the same as he was usually.

With my wife, though, it's different.  She isn't delusional in the sense that she sees objects that definitely aren't there. Instead, she see emotions that aren't there.  Whereas my father integrated his delusions into his otherwise relatively normal daytime routine, my wife changes her behaviour because of the way she sees things.

You mentioned you and your SS had a shared goal - getting some pants that fit.  It seems to me having a shared goal is quite key in this.  You were able to get your SS towards your shared goal by not challenging his worldview - I can understand that, and it makes perfect sense.

But what if the delusion caused the person to change their goal too? If you say 'I understand you think that' to them, then it may be interpreted as 'I understand why you have changed your goal - you are reasonable to do so'.  In fact, you really may think the complete opposite, and wished they hadn't changed their goal at all.

For example, my wife sometimes thinks our kids are being unreasonable, and starts shouting at them.  If I ask her why she's shouting at them, she says 'Because they're being unreasonable'.  I may not think they're being unreasonable.  What do I say?  If I say something like 'I understand that you think that the children are unreasonable', she may well take this to mean 'I understand why you are annoyed - shouting is justified, carry on'.  My goal is to stop her shouting at the children. Her goal is to teach the children not to be 'unreasonable'. We don't have a shared goal. 

If she later described this incident to a third party, she would make sure that the kids were depicted as unreasonably as they could be made to seem without distorting the essential facts too much (often by ascribing false motives to the participants - things she couldn't possibly know, just to make them come across as unkind or unsympathetic).   If the third party accepts (validates) this account, she feels justified in having shouted at them.  The [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] has reinforced the shouting behaviour, and makes it more likely to happen again.

Does that make it clearer why I worry that [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] might reinforce worldviews that are unhelpful?

I'll try and read the references, though. Thanks again for them.

[mamachelle]

 

My goal is to stop her shouting at the children. Her goal is to teach the children not to be 'unreasonable'. We don't have a shared goal.

------

Does that make it clearer why I worry that [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] might reinforce worldviews that are unhelpful?

----

I'll try and read the references, though. Thanks again for them.

tradad,

Here's a quick answer... .  best as I can do in 10 minutes w/o a PsyD.

I would say... .  ahead of time... .  work through a plan to a shared goal of keeping kids from being unreasonable or stopping them in the midst of unreasonableness by using x,y,z  methods. Listen to why she thinks yelling is effective. Listen to what she finds unreasonable. You can agree to disagree on what is unreasonable. See if she will accept sending children to their room for time out, or removing electronics without yelling. Inform children of these expectations at a family meeting. Listen to the children as to what they think is unreasonable. Find common ground with them. Secondary goal: peace in the house.

Really, [url=https://bpdfamily.com/content/communication-skills-validation]validation[/b][/url] and LEAP work. It's pretty powerful stuff and I am afraid that I am just not doing it justice.

The authors do deal with your concerns in the books.

mamachelle

[Auspicious]

The authors do deal with your concerns in the books.

traddad, why don't you give I am Not Sick I Don't Need Help! - Xavier Amador, PhD a read, then come back and let us know what you think?

[Chosen]

My take is that we can't change anybody, nor is telling somebody that they're in denial will ever work.

A person can only change his/ her point of view when they are willing, and able to.  And a pwBPD is unable to do it.

Also, what good is it to label somebody as "ill", if it doesn't change anything?  My choice, therefore, is to just think that "me and this person think in a different way- I may not understand his way, but what can I do to make our communication smoother"? 

And as some have already mentioned, validation isn't about "the truth", but about allowing somebody to have their own views and feelings.  It's not just about conversations with pwBPDs- many times we don't agree with our bosses (they think bad numbers mean it's our problem, etc.) but we can validate them and also suggest solutions.  Truth is, many deviations in viewpoints will never get resolved but I don't think it necessarily means we're stuck.

[MaybeSo]

Do we want to be proven right?

Or, do we want to do what works? (or at least improves things)

Other than clients who believe little green men are growing in the fridge or are breaking the law... . whose world view is more correct is a dicey area.

Everyone disagrees or has a different world view at some level of detail. Al Turtle always says if someone agrees with you all the time, someone is lying. He also concludes everyone makes sense all the time... . if you don't get someone... . you just haven't learned yet what their sense is (what their experience is).

Emotional validation is understanding another person's 'sense'.

And it's  different for every single person.

[arabella]

Does that make it clearer why I worry that validation might reinforce worldviews that are unhelpful?

I think perhaps the thing to keep in mind is that, in terms of her world view, it doesn't matter what you say. Validation will improve your interaction with your wife. It will defuse the situation. It will help your wife to calm down in the moment. All good things. Now, will it reinforce her world views because she twists your words to suit herself? Probably. But that's the thing - you aren't reinforcing her world views, she is. She is going to believe whatever she wants anyway, no matter what you do. So the validating isn't making things worse, because the 'worse' part (the 'con' if you will) is inevitable as part of her illness. She is unable to recognize that her world view does not fit with the world view of C, D, E, etc. She does not care, does not comprehend, and no amount of validation or argument is going to change that. So you might as well go ahead and validate and at least get what benefits you can.

[MaybeSo]

Validation also reinforces emotional boundaries (i understand you have a different experience) and helps protect against enmeshment; you have your world view, and I have mine. We are two separate people.

When we cannot validate anothers experience... . we mistake sympathy or pity (poor thing is crazy, doesnt have my same experience) and anger for logic (only my view is right), this leads to arguments and bresks in connection, and/or Enmeshment to avoid arguments/breaks in connection... . and enmeshment and poor boundaries blurs the lines and prevents individuation: you must have my world views or I will feel anxious and try to argue you into being more like me  And vice versa... .

Validation also encourages ownership; When someone isn't arguing with you and instead

seeks to really understand and reflects back what you said... . "I hear that you are yelling

because you feel overwhelmed, this makes sense"... .

Then the other person is in a better position to own their stuff, too. "I DO yell when I'm feeling overwhelmed... . " (the beginning of insight)

[briefcase]

traddad,

There are also many different ways to be validating without saying "I understand . . ."  If you are worried that telling her you understand she feels angry will mislead her into believing you said you understand why she feels angry (or that you might agree with her "why", you can always change your formulation - You sound angry or Are you feeling frustratated with the kids?

Check out the validation workshop in the Lessons, and watch the Fruzetti video in there - it will give you other ways to validate her that may be more appropriate for the situation, and sound less like agreement with her worldview.  

[almost789]

traddad- Im not sure exactly what your asking or looking for, but it seems to me that if A makes changes in behavior which in turn helps B. (who is mentally ill) I would thing that could have some effect on C, D and E due to B being under less stress and coping better. But unlikely to see significant improvements in  C, D or E with out changes in  C, D and E.

Chosen asks: Why tell someone their ill if nothing will change?

I recently saw a question posted on another website which stated: How did you find out you had BPD? And how did you feel when you found out? Angry, relieved or other?

There were 200+ responses in one day. Around 200 borderlines came forward eager to share. About 175 of them said  RELIEVED that they finally new WHAT was wrong with them and that there were treatments that could help them. Many found out in hospitals after suicide attempts after years of suffering with their madness and no one helping or knowing what was wrong. These were diagnosed by psychiatric doctors. Several had found out via loved one's and social workers bringing it to their attention and then later diagnoses by psych's. Some had even diagnosed themselves after reading books and then were later diagnoses by psychs. More than half of these people claimed they were in DBT or graduated from DBT both with significant improvements and some had even improved themselves via self help after finding out what it actually was that was wrong with them, thus directing them to the appropriate self help products. I find this to be good evidence for me to believe that bringing awarness to them is better than doing nothing and expecting them to just figure it out on their own. But that's just my opinion based on these facts observed.

[mamachelle]

Hey all,

Great thread this has turned into. I just want to clarify that this thread started over here in the Book Review Section.

I am Not Sick I Don't Need Help! - Xavier Amador, PhD

A mod or other advisor broke it and moved it to Staying-- so Tradad's concerns could be better met.

 mamachelle

[Chosen]

Maybe I'm been too simple-minded here, but I think that when a pwBPD starts to sense something is "wrong" with him/her, you will feel it.  Maybe they don't say "there's something wrong with me" outright, but from your conversations you will know.

And then it may be a good time to tell them about BPD.  I have seen some members here who have has success with it, but only those who's pwBPD sense that something is wrong and begins looking inward.

When the pwBPD is still at the stage of thinking everybody else is wrong, if you hint that they are sick, they will likely just think that you are, or worse still, perceive that as an attack rather than a genuine wish to help.  Sure it works differently depending on the case, but many casese have shown that prematurely suggesting BPD may not be the most helpful for the pwBPD.

[almost789]

With my person with BPD, he will both say he knows something is wrong, then flip and say nothing is wrong. So, he flips in and out of conciousness regarding his condition currently. It does take some time to come to an acceptance of it for most.

[yeeter]

A couple of the MC's we saw asked this question (to both of us):

Do you want to be 'right'.  Or do you want to be in a relationship?

Implying these were mutually exclusive goals.

My experience:  Validation definitely works.  Think of it in the reverse - if you make a comment that completely undermines or 'invalidates' someones thoughts or feelings, they are going to have a naturally defensive reaction.  All the biological triggers go off, the emotions overload, and we (as humans) will naturally want to defend our position and ideally win the other person over to our viewpoint (which will make us feel better about our self).

True of anyone.  With a BPD, the triggers and biological responses are much higher.

So figuring out how to understand what is happening with her, will help prevent the triggering of the biological chemicals and subsequent overload and melt down.  Which will in turn make all the interactions more rational and easier to deal with (less conflict as well).

But to do so means you have to give up your goal of being right, and trying to convince the other person of this.  Whether its true or not.

I dont think you have to be dishonest about it either.  Fact is, you will never really understand another person fully, because you are not them (and they are not you).  If you pretend you do, it will come off as insincere and often times just patronizing.  So instead, I dont try to claim I 'understand' my wife.  I do state that her feelings are valid and she is entitled to them, and even state that I dont understand them nor do I feel I have to.

But then what to do in terms of action, as it involves the kids.  Here is where it gets trickier.   A non emotional discussion on healthy parenting skills I have found has worked the best.  Research articles, know how - discuss parenting situations before they present themselves, so you will have some interaction on them before faced with them real time.  (certain categories you know will always come up like punishment, motivations, rewards, expectations to set, etc etc).  Talk through as many of these as possible in the hypothetical, before being faced with them.

Then if she is deregulating on the kids you have to step in and call a time out.  You just have to (without criticizing her parenting style).  After a few times of this it gets easier for everyone.

No one size fits all action when in the moment, for parenting actions.

[alembic]

Do you want to be 'right'.  Or do you want to be in a relationship?

Hello yeeter, thanks for your post and your contribution to the thread.

Personally, I find these topics very difficult to get my head around a lot of the time.

My experience is that being in a relationship with someone with BPD can feel rather emotionally abusive.

If I was in a relationship with someone who was physically abusive, I doubt anyone would ask

':)o you want to be 'unhurt'?  Or do you want to be in a relationship?'

Everyone seems to accept nowadays that physical abuse in a relationship is just plain and non-negotiably wrong, and that the person doing the hitting is the one at fault.  People who are physically abusive are usually immediately expected to attend some sort of treatment - I don't think there are frequently suggestions that victims need to change their behaviour to lessen their chances of being hit.

When it comes to emotional abuse, though, the waters seem to get much more muddy.  When my wife screams at me and threatens extreme behaviour, she claims I have caused her to act like that.  She argues that I am the ill one, and that my mistreatment of her and insistence on being 'right' means her behaviour is justified.   The recommendations for how to deal with people who behave like that often seem to be along the lines of not challenging the other person's worldview, letting them believe what they want, and just validating what they seem to be saying.

If it's just the two of you that you're considering, and you wish to continue with the relationship with that person for whatever reason, then yes, I can see that validation and not challenging the other person might be an effective strategy to allow the relationship to continue.  It is up to the individual, I think, whether you choose to continue supporting someone else's worldview that you may not necessary agree with, or even feel represents a valid interpretation of reality.

However, when children are involved, I feel the story is rather different.  You're not just talking about personal decisions you are making to support and have a relationship with another individual in spite of your large differences in outlook.  Parents have a crucial role to play in building confidence in children, setting values for them, promoting ethical behaviour and so on.  They are supposed to be role models for their children.  So when you validate your partner's (sometimes very peculiar) world view, the message you are (perhaps unconsciously) giving to your children is 'This is legitimate point of view'. And perhaps in some cases this is not a message you would ideally like to give out.

Similarly, when you tolerate your partner's rages, and forgive them afterwards, you are not just making a personal decision that you can take it and can carry on, which is of course your prerogative - you are demonstrating to your children that this sort of behaviour is, in some way, acceptable. Because you have tolerated it, and have accepted that this is just your partner's way of dealing with things.

When you start to see your own children pick up the same ways of behaving, it is very, very worrying and you begin to fear for their future.  Do we really want to (perhaps passively)  give youngsters with the impression that acting in this way towards other people is a valid way of behaving? They will be the adults filling up bulleting boards like this in the future.  And they didn't ask to be brought up in a family where one of their parents had BPD - they didn't make that choice, in the same way you made the choice to stay in the relationship with the person with BPD. 

This is why I think there's more to this than just saying ':)on't challenge the person with BPD'.  If it's just you and them - fair enough.  But when there are youngster's futures at stake, surely some dose of 'reality' is necessary to try and ensure that those youngsters get a fair chance to have a happy and BPD-free successful life?

[yeeter]

Hi traddad.  

First, I agree with everything you wrote.

And nowhere on this site do we suggest putting up with abuse, nor allowing abuse of children.  And yes, emotional and verbal abuse is still abuse.

As for your own hurt though, its only to the degree that you allow it.  And the tools here do help, and work, to develop the skills to detach and prevent it.  She can feel a certain way, and you can validate and accept it, but it doesnt mean you have to feel the same way, nor does it mean you have to own or fix her feelings.  Its on her then to figure out what to do with herself after that.

Indeed its much much more difficult when coparenting.  Children dont get to pick their parents.  But they are still a part of their lives, whether they like it or not (meaning this BPD person is their mother for the rest of their life, like it or not).  So its critical that you try to provide some stability and healthy perspective, which includes stepping in when needed, talking about their feelings with them, helping them develop skills in dealing with mom, and setting an example on a healthy way to behave and live.  These things can all be done independent of your wifes actions.  And if she is abusing the children, and you are unable to prevent it, then the CPS services will put them in a better environment.

One of the key things that CPS looks for is conflict in the home.  The philosophy is that conflict is bad for children, and if they need to separate mom and dad for the sake of reducing conflict for the children then they will do it.

What I have found is that by letting my wife have her view.  And also sharing my own view (which is different) - simply as an alternative view - that my children absorb it and make their own decisions.  At a very early age even, they understand a lot and will go out and calibrate with the world to come up with their own views (which are sometimes different than my own, but thats what makes us all individuals).  And no, I dont mean learning that its ok to put up with abuse.  

One of the things that is confusing me in your post is what 'problem' is it that you disagree with?  (the title of the post).  You seem to be lumping a number of things together, and it might help to segregate for clarification purposes.

Putting up with abuse (in any form) - not ok

Allowing someone to abuse your children (in any form) - not ok

Differences of parenting 'style' - fuzzy and will be debated until the end of time

Constantly trying to get a mentally disordered person to see the logic and reasonableness in your viewpoints - an exercise in futility

Same with defending yourself against illogical and unfounded accusations - another futility exercise which takes a lot of emotional energy

Learning a new approach of interacting with your partner and your children - a worthwhile effort that really can change the dynamics (no guarantees, and a lot of work)

[alembic]

Hello again Yeeter.

Thanks for taking the time to reply again.  I sometimes find it amazing how similar experiences the people who write to this forum have had.   And it definitely helps to know that you're not the only one out there going through this sort of thing.

The thread title, btw, is nothing to do with me.  This thread was split off a different thread, and the mods decided to give it this title.  But I think they intended it to mean ':)isagreement over who is the source of the conflict in the relationship'.

It sounds daft, I know, but I feel sometimes a slight twinge of jealousy when I hear about couples where the BPD partner is prepared to admit their condition, and actually seek treatment, even if the treatment isn't entirely successful.  There's a lot to be said for someone who is trying to get better.

I think my wife would rather die than ever admit she might have a problem, regardless of the volume of evidence she might be presented with.  She accepts all the conflict in our household happens, but in her worldview, it is everyone else's fault.  When she shouts at the kids, it's their fault, because they deserved it.  When she shouts at me, it's my fault because I deserved it.  She is actually extremely good at coming up with convincing sounding explanations why it is always the other party's fault.  The fact that she's so clever and can easily construct such elaborate scenarios just makes it harder. The only problem is, though, that these excuses are just constructed on the spot purely to exonerate her, so they can never be collected together to form a coherent philosophy, that you could say represents her worldview - they all clash and contradict one another. Which is why trying to make sense of what she actually believes is next to impossible.

In my view, that's one of the main differences between someone who is ill and someone who is healthy. If we were just talking about marital conflict born of different philosophies, you might still hope to be able to assemble the other person's statements and actions into a (more or less) coherent worldview, even if you didn't agree with it. You might still argue vehemently about the differences, and (unfortunately) upset each other.  But there would always be some chance of compromise, if you could come around to understand enough of each other's worldview and you were tolerant enough of each other.  When dealing with someone with BPD though, there seems to be no consistent worldview, even if it sometimes appears there is to third parties, who can't spot the inconsistencies, and shifting values over time.  So you can't really come to any sort of solid compromise, because the landscape is always moving, and any agreement will not hold in the medium or long term.  My wife puts on a very convincing show, though, and can nearly always convince third parties that I am the unreasonable one, who is trying to prevent her from doing what she wants in life,  naturally omitting the fact that what she wants in life this month is completely different from what she wanted last month.  If I try and point this out, it just makes me look like I am trying to tie her down and be restrictive towards her, rather than being 'supportive' of her latest set of values. 

I understand what you are driving at with regard to the validation for reducing conflict, and I've tried to do similar things at various points in the past.  But even there, I usually find I do not succeed.  My wife views _everything_ as a form of contest of wills.  If we are arguing, winning the argument is the goal. If I am withdrawing, stopping me withdrawing is the goal.  However I attempt to shift the dynamic, resisting that shift is the goal.  Because in her mind, if I want it like that, then that is a good enough reason to try and prevent it.

So if I refuse to argue, and refuse to get riled, and simply validate her comments, she will take a different tack.   She will claim that I am 'emotionally withdrawn', that I have taken away my love from her, and that I am deliberately trying to wreck the marriage by not being 'good' with her. She always finds a way to make whatever is happening at the time the other party's fault.  She takes responsibility for nothing, at least in an emotional sense.  Oddly, she will take responsibility for practical things, though.

The really sad thing is that the mentality that goes with BPD seems rather 'infectious'.  It corrupts your own values, and those of the children, and so you soon find yourself getting instinctively drawn into the emotional haemorrhages that go on in your household. They become part of the currency of your relationship, and part of the example that is set to the children.  And your partner's accusations that you are the source of the problem start to slowly become more true, as your own mental health starts to deteriorate.  It's hard to describe the feeling of peace that sometimes comes over me when I get to have a normal conversation with a group of normal people, and don't have to choose my words ultra-carefully,  pre-process everything I say, and be afraid of what might happen next.

Yes, you are right about the children listening to what we both say, and making their own decisions.  But again, this easily becomes just another contest of wills.  My wife often seems to see it as a battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the children, and if they start to lean more towards my way of thinking, she will accuse me of corrupting them, and turning them against her, even though the children all love their mum very much.

Third parties and our children are a big problem for us.  We share parental responsibility, and there are times when my wife is representing us both to a third party.  I often simply have no idea what she will say to them, whether it will be consistent with what she has said in the past, or whether it will something entirely new. Or even, in extreme cases, whether she will criticize me, and make inappropriate comments and inferences about me and my character to others. If it's important, I naturally try and be there too. But that is sometimes hard logistically, and it's not always appropriate to take a contrary opinion to my wife in public, even it would be for our children's benefit.

If my wife were prepared to admit she had a problem, this might open up conversations like 'Look, this might be hard for you, why not let me handle it this time?'.  But that's never possible, because we're all the source of the problem, not her. So why should my wife not be able to tackle anything she wants to?  Because anything else would just be being controlled by me, wouldn't it?

[yeeter]

I get it traddad.

My wife is uNPD/uBPD, so there is and underlying need to always be right and represent to the outside world in a way that puts her in the most positive light possible (at my expense often)

It's maddening.  But something out of your control

as was advised to me at the time the way you combat it is to regain you own sense of person. Confidence. And let your actions speak for themselves.  You can't control what another person does, thinks, or says.  You just can't. And running around bhind them trying to represent your view isn't a viable plan.  So you lift yourself up, and start being the person you want to be (as you say, your own mental Health has suffered to where you are someone you don't want to be). You CAN control your own behavior.  Take th high road.  Set a course by example and lead forward in the relationship.

Draw boundaries.  Detach.  Get off the codependency merry go round and put your attention on yourself and not her.

Your kids will notice.  You will bcome more confident and also more capable.  And very likely, as hard as it is to imagine, your wife will adjust to your change.

Keep reading.  Posting.  Practicing.  Reading some more.

[Auspicious]

I still think you should read the book ... .

For example, my wife sometimes thinks our kids are being unreasonable, and starts shouting at them.  If I ask her why she's shouting at them, she says 'Because they're being unreasonable'.  I may not think they're being unreasonable.  What do I say?  If I say something like 'I understand that you think that the children are unreasonable', she may well take this to mean 'I understand why you are annoyed - shouting is justified, carry on'.  My goal is to stop her shouting at the children. Her goal is to teach the children not to be 'unreasonable'. We don't have a shared goal. 

A possible angle here for partnership lies in the fact that whether or not they were being unreasonable, shouting at them is unlikely to cause any positive change.

In other words, rather than arguing with her about whether they were being unreasonable, maybe - yes, there are no guarantees, but maybe - you and she could partner on more effective ways to deal with the situation. Especially if guided by a family therapist.

[alembic]

A possible angle here for partnership lies in the fact that whether or not they were being unreasonable, shouting at them is unlikely to cause any positive change.

In other words, rather than arguing with her about whether they were being unreasonable, maybe - yes, there are no guarantees, but maybe - you and she could partner on more effective ways to deal with the situation. Especially if guided by a family therapist.

Hello again Auspicious.  Thanks again for your consideration.

I understand what you're saying.  But in practice, these things seem very, very difficult. I have tried to make agreements with my wife that she will not shout at the children.  But one problem is, she denies actually doing it.  I can go up to her, straight after she has shouted at the children and say in a neutral voice 'You are shouting at the children' and she will deny it.   She says something like 'I'm not shouting - I'm just raising my voice so that they can hear'.   The children think she's shouting. I think she's shouting.  She doesn't.

If I insist that she is shouting, she will accuse me of victimising her.  Then she sometimes goes to the other extreme, and refuses to talk to the children at all, because ':)addy doesn't believe I'm talking to you properly'.

If a family therapist could see the situation, I'm sure they would think she is shouting too.  But they can't - they just have our accounts of the situations to work with.  And who should the therapist believe?  I say my wife is shouting, she says she isn't, and says it's my perceptions of the family dynamic that are at fault.  When our perceptions of reality differ so much, how is it possible to judge who's version is nearer the mark?  She claims that I'm the one with the problem, and that I'm simply blaming and victimising her for my own shortcomings.  She'll happily further claim that if ever she does raise her voice, it's because of the absolute exhaustion of living with a hopeless husband, that doesn't support her properly, and expects her to cope with everything.  Many therapists will accept that exhaustion can make people cranky, so again she successfully shifts the diagnostic attention on to me.   It's only by looking at the details, comparing what she's said over time, noticing that her actions frequently contradict her statements, that one can see there's something not quite right there. But most therapists aren't that bothered about getting down to the nitty-gritty - it's too complex to take account of all the things one partner has said and done over years ("he said, she said", and after all - they've only got my word that she ever said or did most of these things at all.  So as long as she puts forward a reasonably self-consistent view to the therapist at the time, and cries a lot about how terrible it is to live with me, she usually garners enough sympathy to deflect attention from herself, and onto me. 

If I point out that the children think she's shouting too, she will say that they're just siding with me to try and curry favour ('divide and rule', and that a good husband would support his wife and not undermine her authority with the children.  She says I'm causing the problem by siding with them against her, and that if I supported her in her attempts to discipline them, everything would be much better, and she wouldn't feel so victimised and alone.  What do you know? I'm the problem again.

So it's not just that we can't agree whether the kids were unreasonable. We can't agree whether my wife was shouting either.   Surely, in order to have any chance of holding to some sort of agreement, there has to be some element of 'shared reality' that we can agree on?  Then snag is that any element of 'shared reality' that would imply that she might be behaving less than angelically is usually instantly rejected, or somehow undermined, because she can't emotionally accept the implication that she might be doing something wrong.

I promise I will try and get hold of the book, and read it with an open mind!

[alembic]

You can't control what another person does, thinks, or says.  You just can't. And running around bhind them trying to represent your view isn't a viable plan.

Yeah, that's really tough to have to accept, though.

My wife doesn't seem to have what you might regard as 'normal boundaries' of behaviour. Especially if for whatever reason, she feels threatened.

For example, she has no qualms about talking to officials who are responsible for child welfare, and hinting that I am a bad father, and am the source of our children's problems.   She's too clever to say that outright, though, because that might be picked up and the facts challenged.  So she does it all with a 'nod and wink'.  She's very good at using trailing sentences, that say things without actually saying them.  If challenged, she happily denies she said anything, and of course, she didn't.  But the listener would usually be in no doubt what she is implying.

She's been doing this for years with various officials, like her doctor, our children's doctor, our children's teachers,  her psychiatric nurse, anyone who will listen really, and might have a say in our children's future.  I think she's trying to use it as a form of 'insurance'.  She knows that one day our relationship might come to an end, so she's trying to 'seed' enough of her point of view into key officials that they might support her case if push comes to shove.

It's very hard sometimes to sit back, and just accept that she is doing things like this. It's also embarrassing to have to meet the officials concerned, knowing what my wife has been saying to them, and the opinion they may well have formed of me as a result of it.

[Auspicious]

I have tried to make agreements with my wife that she will not shout at the children.  But one problem is, she denies actually doing it.  I can go up to her, straight after she has shouted at the children and say in a neutral voice 'You are shouting at the children' and she will deny it.   She says something like 'I'm not shouting - I'm just raising my voice so that they can hear'.   The children think she's shouting. I think she's shouting.  She doesn't.

What I'm suggesting is that instead of focusing on the shouting, focusing on working together to find things that do work to improve things.

Shouting, raising voice, or whatever, I doubt it's working very well to accomplish what she wants. So maybe she could collaborate on finding other ways. Focused on the finding other ways, NOT on how wrong wrong wrong the shouting is. She can't handle being wrong, so don't make it about her being wrong.

She's not going to be motivated by what's bothering you ... . if anything is going to motivate her (which is by no means guaranteed, granted in full), it would be what's bothering her.

Nobody is saying that any of this is easy ... . it isn't. It's very hard. But a shift in focus can at least improve the odds of improvements.