Geoffrey Setiawan: Online Reputation, Independent Review

[bugwaterguy]

Hello folks,

Is this a scam? I am struggling on how to improve myself and my relationship with my undiagnosed, potentially BPD wife.

Therapists I have been to in the past have only reinforced what I already thought, and haven't given me new tools to move forward.  They basically tell me I am doing things right - which doesn't help me.  I have tried a Divorce Busting Coach - which is based on Solution-Oriented Therapy.  It hasn't seemed to work.  I think it is because people with BPD have an extreme need for validation, and Solution-Oriented Therapy focuses on outcomes.  My wife has complained of this in the past.

I have been watching this guy called Geoffrey Setiawan (https://www.youtube.com/c/GeoffreySetiawan ) on YouTube, and trying some of his techniques.  It hasn't been very long, but they seem to be working.  My wife has been opening up emotionally and has actually gave me 4 hugs in the past week - more than I have gotten in the prior year.

I know I am in an emotional state - and I strongly want to help myself, my marriage, and my wife.  It might be a confirmation bias.  I am looking for someone to help me out and give me an opinion.

The guy's background seems sketchy, but the content seems legit. 

Here is my pros and cons list

  Cons

• The website does not have longevity - it has only been around since 2018. How long will they be around in the future?
• Geoffrey’s educational background is in marketing, not relationships or mental health
• Geoffrey is relatively young (graduate college in 2013) - I believe in the innovative ideas of young people - age does not grant wisdom
• Most stuff that comes up around him when I do a google search is related to his business success, not relationship success
• He doesn’t refer to research much in his videos - is this stuff all just coming from his own head, or is there data to back it up?
• I can’t find independent reviews of his program - either positive or negative.  The closest I can get is his self-promoted YouTube success stories on his own channel - Very few coaching sites have independent reviews
• He sometimes seems dismissive of mental illness as a root cause of the problem -He argues that if you create emotional safety, the person with mental illness will feel comfortable sharing their issues - there is truth to that - that is what good counselors do
• A one-time payment and being supported forever sounds like a pyramid scheme -Although with most folks, they will need huge amounts of support in the beginning, then less as time goes on - it will either work for them, or they will give up
• I can't tell how long he has been in his long-term relationship - I don't think he is actually married.
• Money - the program has a 1-time $2,000 cost

I have under-functioned in the financial areas of my life.  I have let my wife control the finances.  I am very unsure if this is affordable in the short-term. My wife will see my spending money on this as an act of desperation. I don’t have the techniques to explain this to her - I am afraid this will drive her away I am looking into selling my comic collection.  If it would generate enough funds - I would take the risk and move forward

  Pros

• It is a one-time investment/risk for unlimited access to coaching and support forums -with coaching/therapy sessions running at $110/session - that would be the equivalent of 19 sessions
• I think the skills learned here will help me in the future, regardless of my marriage success.
• Some of the techniques around creating emotional safety seem to be already working
• It discusses hypothesis-antithesis-synthesis thinking - which is the root of Dialectical Behavior Therapy - which is the only proven treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder - which my wife has many of the symptoms of (though not diagnosed)
• They really encourage participants to look at their own confirmation bias - which I appreciate. Both of us have talked about “walking on eggshells” with the other person.  Neither of us has done a good job of bringing up emotional issues.  She has opened up emotionally with these techniques.  So have I.
• I have been a “fixer” in the past - and my wife often complains about it - this has some tangible techniques to work through that. I have focused on solutions instead of understanding the emotions behind her thinking
• I have tried to counteract her emotions with logic, which has always failed - they talk about this as a problem.  This sounds like JADE (justify, argue, defend, explain), which BPD books also tell you to avoid.
• It has a clear plan to follow - which gives some solid goals to work through
• It focuses on yourself - and I have a strong internal locus of control
• It has lots of free videos too - which has led me to some of the conclusions in this list
• As I look through my notes and journals of our relationship problems - emotional safety and trust issues is what my wife seems to bring up the most. Other programs do not focus on that, which seems to be our biggest issue.
• It encourage skeptical thinking - which resonates with me
• It encourages a balanced approach in most things, where other programs seem extreme - Nothing is black-and-white
• It focuses on counteracting hopelessness in yourself and your partner - which I believe is a key issue - most other programs focus on attraction
• Many other programs seem to talk about manipulating or tricking your partner.  My wife is way too smart to fall for that.
• Other programs talk about hiding things from your spouse, which I have never been able to do.  I can’t even pull off a surprise party.  It is in my nature to be open and genuine.
• It talks a great deal about “untethering”, which I have a problem with.  I am so tied to the outcome of wanting the marriage to succeed, that I am not making the best decisions.
• Much of what he is saying resonates with Brene Brown’s stuff on vulnerability
• He talks about efficiency vs effectiveness, which is another complaint from my wife about me.  She says I focus too much on the outcome and not on her feelings.
• He talks about long-term changes rather than a quick fix.  He uses the analogy of farming vs hunting.
• It has unlimited access to videos and support group forums

What do folks think?

[once removed]

I looked at the blog and would like to offer my review of this article:

Why Couples Therapy Fails for Most Couples
Written by Geoffrey Setiawan
https://relationshipsmastered.com/blog-1

This blog article raises some questions for me. Setiawan claims that couples therapy mostly fails and his answer to that is to use him rather than hire a therapist and let him (Setiawan) "turn you into your own relationship doctor, so that you don’t need to go to a doctor." "The system is broken."

Is this a sound proposition? Granted, marriage therapy stats aren't very good (neither are the stats of Alcoholics Anonymous) and there are many mediocre therapists, but the statistics he presents are from research studies that reached conclusions completely different from what he has in this article. None suggest anything like "turn yourself into your own relationship doctor, so that you don’t need to go to a doctor."

In an interesting twist,  Setiawan goes on to tell us that the source of his  psychology knowledge is the very thing that he argues to be ineffective ,  "8+ years going to the best couples therapy sessions". He also mentions "buying other programs, and reading books".

It makes me wonder why a mix of resources like those that Setiawan used for himself wouldn't be the best thing for others, too. Setiawan certainly feels he benefited from the mix and it doesn't appear that he bypassed couples therapy to be his own relationship doctor.

[stolencrumbs]

It seems to me to land on the "scam" side of the meter, for all the reasons you list. The whole thing seems to be set up like one of those get-rich-quick real estate schemes--start with an ad, get people to your free seminar, then ask for thousands of dollars to get the real info that's going to make you rich. Meanwhile, the yahoo running the "seminar" is the only one getting rich. Except, in this case, it's not money, but the promise of fixing a relationship that gets people hooked. At the end of the day, this is a guy who is (according to one article) making $70,000/month selling a magical "5 keys to relationship success" to vulnerable people on the brink of divorce. I wouldn't give him my money.

If the content is legit (I didn't actually look at the content), then it will be available in places that don't cost $2000. The real value would be in having some personal support and guidance, and if this guy is making $70,000/month off of this (how many "clients" is that?), he's not doing much of that. https://mikedillard.com/episodes/he-makes-70000-mo-with-5000-youtube-subscribers-with-geoffrey-setiawan/

Just my $.02. Apologies for the bluntness. I know this all comes from a place of genuinely trying to improve things in your relationship and just looking for something that works. But glancing at the website and videos, I'd be skeptical that this guy has the answers.

[bugwaterguy]

Thanks for the response, and don't apologize for the bluntness - that is what I am looking for.

The techniques he is mentioning on his free YouTube stuff seems to be working.  I can keep doing that without the coaching and courses. 

Did you watch any of the videos?  Although they have clickbait titles - the content seems good, and relatable for someone who has  a partner with BPD.  Particularly the stuff about creating emotional safety, becoming untethered to your partner, and not becoming a victim and blaming everything whatever label you apply to your partner.

[thankful person]

Hi bug water guy, I don’t get much opportunity to watch such videos, but I’d be most interested if you could share any of the techniques and circumstances where they’ve worked for you.

[bugwaterguy]

His biggest lesson is related to emotional and psychological safety.  You can't deal with any issues unless that exists.

Couples feel hopeless, because they feel they cannot bring up problems in an honest way.
Lack of emotional safety happens over long time, and often subconsciously
Loss of safety and trust is the issue, not conflict
When stonewallling or gaslighting occur - it is usually a defense mechanism to a lack of safety - NOT a character flaw
When someone seemingly gets upset over a small thing - it really isn’t the small thing - but layers of problems that have built up - the small thing is the trigger.

To build emotional safety - you cannot be focused on the outcome of a conversation.  You must be focused on making sure your partner is heard.  Don't use logic - but focus on feelings. 

[hands down]

While I don’t know the dude or his business model… & feeling as the  YouTube page feels like a money grab…. I will say this.

I unequivocally think exactly what you’ve outlined is why 100% of relationships fail. YEA I even include BPD relationships. and ya, hyperbole alert. I believe 100%

Now - there are a lot of contributing factors as the the WHYs around this topic but not being or feeling safe enough to bring all of you (regardless of why), into the relationship is the death of a relationship. In BPD, I’d go so far to say this even starts in the infatuation phase…. See the love bombing is just the beginning of the dishonesty, “if I brought my whole self, it wouldn’t be acceptable” you have to he perfect because we’re destined.  Bottom line, acceptance and letting go is the root of most all modern therapy (CBT, DBT et Al) and the only place that begins is where all things are known, present, discussed and accepted. 

This isn’t a vote of confidence for or against this guy, but his philosophy seems sound if it’s based on what you outline…. Any practice you do that brings you and your partner into a safe space, to see, be seen, feel and be felt while exposing all of your cares, fears, and concerns…. That intimacy… intimacy = relational health.

$0.02

[bugwaterguy]

Thanks hands down,

One thing that resonating with me was his video on boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkF8R-2NuT4

I held some firm boundaries around clutter.  The stuff did get cleaned up - but there was tons of resentment around it.  I think it directly led to my wife seeking divorce.  I would rather have my wife with the clutter, than a clean house without my wife.

As I engaged in those discussions - I could tell that it felt like an ultimatum to her, rather than a boundary.  Ultimatums make anyone feel lousy. 

They also set up a dynamic of power & control, rather than partnership.  It automatically brings up defensiveness.

When I have brought up issues in the past around clutter - I have been focused on cleaning it up.  I have also tried to understand her feelings - but my mindset was - "if she won't share her feelings, at least I can get this stuff cleared out"


He doesn't say boundaries are completely bad - he just says they should be set from a place of understanding - not fear.  He says if you have to set boundaries, you probably aren't in a good place of emotional safety.

[Skip]

I reviewed this YouTube video...

Separation From Spouse: Can It Heal Your Marriage?
Video by Geoffrey Setiawan
(excerpt posted below)

In my opinion, this is a simple, impeccably organized video presentation that explores the pros and cons of separation. The speaker is a very compelling presenter and he presents with confidence.

Content-wise, there are parts of his video that make a lot of sense to me. There are parts that reflect a lack of experience and depth.

There are two main points in this video.

  Separation won't be restorative to the relationship if it is just used as a time to cool off, break the cycle of conflict, followed by getting back after you miss the person.
This is a valid point if restoring the relationship is the goal of the separation.

  It is important to use time to tackle or resolve relationship problems.
This is an equally valid point once both parties are open to do this.  Getting to a place of finding and addressing the underlying and entrenched problems is extremely important to restore the relationship.

  The recommended action plan is a process Setiawan says should be managed by the viewer of  the video who:

• 1. needs to control his emotions,
• 2. manage the partner emotions,
• 3. lead conversations in the proper way,
• 4. create and sustain admiration and spark.

This is where it gets muddy. How often is this realistic?  As the presenter points out earlier in the video, separation is often a time when emotions are high, couples are stuck in a cycle of conflict, they struggle to keep things in perspective, and for at least one of them, the spark and motivation to continue may be dimmed or just plan exhausted. Even if the husband were up to the prescribed action plan, the wife may not be ready or may not be willing to follow the husband's lead. Couples often separate because there significant underlying problems compounded by communication problems, resentments that have grown, and communications that have broken down.

    I am baffled at why the presentation over looks the more conventional "supervised therapeutic separation" where a third party (e.g., mental health professional, clergy) facilitates and mediates the separation using both individual and couples sessions. Professionals can provide perspective, structure, and dictate pace in these difficult times and can also serve as a sounding board so that each party can be "heard" without triggering the other.

    What? Setiawan lists questions to ask yourself to determine if a separation is appropriate (you need 4 yes answers).

• Do you have the motivation to fix it now
• Do you understand that this is a temporary solution
• Do you have a gameplan to learn how to mange emotions (hers and yours)
• Do you have a gameplan to keep the spark alive

These questions seem naive to me. Couple separate because one has been hugely violated (e.g., adultery), or one experienced insurmountable tragedy (e.g. death of a child), or one feels the day to day situation is toxic (e.g. alcoholism) or dangerous (e.g., domestic violence), or one has a new love interest, or one is just exasperated and ready to call it quits. No one is coolly drafting game plans, they are running away from the pain.

Bottom line, I think it would be very hard to make the argument that unsupervised therapeutic separations have better outcomes than supervised therapeutic separations. The idea of "being your own doctor" would seem ill advised in these situations.


Date: 10-2019Minutes: 7:33
Excerpt: Separation From Spouse: Can It Heal Your Marriage?
Fair use: Excerpted for purposes such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or scholarship,
pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107.

[stolencrumbs]

I'm a big fan of whatever works. I haven't listened to the videos (except some of the video linked here on boundaries), but it sounds like advice that is roughly in line with the advice given here. I don't see anything "wrong" with what he is saying. I'd just be skeptical of paying him money.

I think what you say about boundaries here is right. I kind of wish everyone would just throw out the language on boundaries. If you get to the heart of what they are, and how to properly have them, they're fine, but the language around it really sends people in bad directions a lot of times. The language makes it all sound very combative. You have to "enforce" the boundary and be "firm." You build a "wall" and you have to "defend" it. Etc. It's almost militant the way they are sometimes talked about. And then we get all geared up to set a boundary and defend and enforce that boundary. And as this guy says, going in with that approach is bound to fail. IMO, there are only so many times we can say "boundaries are misunderstood" before we should all just accept that there's something wrong with the language surrounding it and not people's ability to understand it.

[bugwaterguy]

Hey bug water guy, thanks for clarifying that. Is there any advice (our have you found anything particularly works) for opening a difficult conversation? I talked at length on here last year about my goal for the children to see my parents before we move away… which we finally all did go… but several months have passed and we’re still moving away, and I’d like us to go again. I’m all for listening, hearing and validation… I just haven’t mentioned anything about it yet because it’s easier to keep the peace ya know…

Here is my take on bringing up difficult conversation

-only do it in person
-start with some kind of physical touch, if your relationship is in a place where that is possible
-start with positive intentions on your partner's part - for example:  "I know you want to be fair and reasonable" - if you can highlight any good things they have done in this area - do that
-bring up your concern, with caveats if needed

-wait for their response.
-do not be focused on the outcome of the conversation - your primary concern is trying to understand their feelings about the concern
-do not use logic - if they are in a highly emotional state, it will waste everyone's time.  Do not JADE (justify, argue, defend, or explain)
-any feelings they bring up, validate them.  if they say horrible things about you - agree with those feelings. (don't agree with untrue accusations, but agree with the feelings behind them - for example if they say "You don't love me",  you can respond "I would feel horrible too if I thought you didn't love me")
-rephrase what they say, and ask if you got it right
-ask open ended questions - NOT assumptions designed as questions
-silence is fine, wait longer than you think you need to
-Stay in listener mode - not counter-argument mode
-Effectiveness is more important than Efficiency - if you talk for 4 hours with no resolution, but are creating emotional safety - that is a good thing!
-Don’t move forward to solutions, until you understand their mindset

[BPDFamily]

At the request of Geoffrey Setiawan we are posting the following:

email discussions with BPDFamily staff online discussions with moderators promotional posts removed by moderators

As with all reviews, Geoffrey has been offered the opportunity to comment on members content reviews.

[Geoffrey Setiawan]

Hi and thank you for posting the full emails and my communication! That's all I can ask

[Turkish]

One thing that resonating with me was his video on boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkF8R-2NuT4

Hey bugwaterguy and stolencrumbs, I looked at the video The Toxic Paradox of Setting Boundaries in Relationships and have some observations.

Geoffrey Setiawan is telling the viewer about bad experiences he had with "boundaries". He tells viewers to abandon the concept - he repeats the point over and over. He says it's best to not have a black and white position on infidelity for example (3:58m-  4:32m). Instead, be open to hear your partners reasoning, they may have a valid reason for the affair.

He then encourages viewers to, instead, adopt what appears to be a logic matrix that philosophers Kant, Hegal, and Karl Marx used to determine philosophical "truths". It's a format for reasoned argumentation by academics with differing points of view (thesis | anti-thesis | synthesis).

Unexpected to say the least.

Are reactionary ultimatums toxic in a relationship?
Absolutely. I agree with him. This is destructive and there many people doing this in the midst of conflict. Reactionary ultimatums just amp up the fight.

But I don't agree that reactionary ultimatums and boundaries are the same thing, regardless of what some Internet pirates say.

Defining values/boundaries is a life skill. Many of us don't think much about what we truly value or when we are betraying our own values (crossing over our boundaries) and that does not serve us well. If we then connect with someone who is not very clear about what their values are, there can be trouble down the road if the growing conflict and resentment in the relationship is driven by a fundamental conflict of core values.

For example, if you have very strong feeling about monogamy and faithfulness and your partner doesn't, this could be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode at some point in a 30 year marriage.

It is better to understand our values, live them faithfully, share them and explain them in positive ways and keep people in our life that will help us achieve them. Marrying a person with different values will always be a struggle. Communication skills can't fix that.

There is a good article about personal values and building shared relationship values and boundaries  here: bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries

Is the hypotheisis thesis | anti-thesis | synthesis model useful?
I was surprised to see this in a video about boundaries. This part of the video is short but generally good. He talks about active listening, empathy, compromise, building consensus -  fundamental building blocks of relationships (my words, not his).

Is an academic logic model a good visual for these soft skills? It's probably okay if you don't take it literally. The thesis | anti-thesis | synthesis model is about presenting different thesis', determining points of agreement, and using deductive logic to resolve or narrow the points of disagreement. Deductive logic is probably not too useful in relationship tensions.

Listening to your partner and being empathic and understanding, and patient is often enough. We don't always have to solve differences, sometimes we just need to accept and respect them or compromise. Sometimes we need to just let go of things in the interest of harmony.

[Skip]

My take on this is that Geoffrey Setiawan is a guy, like many if us, who struggled in a bad relationship. It sounds like he then got caught up in some bad amateur psychology online, eventually connected with a professional and was directed to more reliable resources. It sounds like he learned that a lot of amateur psychology is not constructive. I think we can all agree.

Now he is the "amateur psychologists" trying to operate at a level above the "bad amateur psychologists" that he previously read. I give him credit for trying to correct some really "bad amateur psychology" and his message is certainly more constructive than most. That is all good.

Should anyone invest $2,000 and use this as their primary source of mental health and relationship guidance?

My answer would be to seriously think twice. One might be better advised to hire a good therapist, as he did, and to read books/articles and work with a support group that is in tune with the concepts being used by the therapist.  There is immense value in this synergy of resources as we learn. And we can better trust the credibility of these things when we see the large body of research that supports them. "Evidence based" is a leading trend in psychology.

What is the downside of of investing $2,000 and using Setiawan as a primary/sole source of mental health and relationship guidance?

One, Setiawan is unashamedly  directing vulnerable people away from the most reputable and reliable resources and having synergy of resources for his own profit. That is the business model. Two, Setiawan's work often mixes practical advice with not so good and even naive advice. He doesn't appear know when he is giving bad advice and this is particularly risky because the good advice often creates confidence in the bad advice and this is exactly how the "bad amateur psychology" came to be.

When questioned about this by once removed :

It makes me wonder why a mix of resources like those that Setiawan used for himself wouldn't be the best thing for others, too. Setiawan certainly feels he benefited from the mix and it doesn't appear that he bypassed couples therapy to be his own relationship doctor.

Setiawan said this:

To your point on using my experience from reading books, therapy, etc...This isn't inherently wrong.

All knowledge is iterative. When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, while the theory itself is revolutionary, the premises and hypotheses by which he bases that revolutionary concept isn't new.

The difference lies in how you synthesize already proven and tested first-principles to:
1) Create the right formation of what the problems and the right causes of the problems actually are.
2) To create the right remedies, action steps, and realistic and effective applications for them.

Again, if you become more familiar with my work, my philosophies, etc... It might provide more context for people to understand the claims.

I surmise from this that Setiawan sees himself as a luminary.

I see him as someone presenting his understanding (and in some cases misunderstanding) of basic physiology principles that can be found in many places on the internet.

I note that he doesn't cites the sources of his information. He presents the work of others as his own. He uses data from studies to support his own narrative, which in some cases is the opposite of what the researchers concluded from the data. And, I find his repurposing of "thesis - anti-thesis - synthesis" as a couples communication tool as pseudo-complex and gimmicky. He's actually talking about "active listening" (Carl Rogers and Richard Farson, circa 1957) and compromising.

[Geoffrey Setiawan]

Thank you for the comments on my YouTube videos!

Agreed with you that people should never blindly believe whatever they hear, do their full and unbiased research, think in a scientific, objective and evidence-backed way before investing money into anything.

We should go for whatever yields results, and allow us to have the most thriving life and relationship.

We always try to remind people of this as much as we can, so thank you for giving this reminder and encouraging a culture of thoughtfulness and healthy skepticism!

[Daggy1974]

Been a member of BPD family since December 2022. I saw this thread and almost did not sign up for Geoffrey's program. Thank goodness I still did, because as I write this in October 2023, we are in a completely different place in our marriage.

The biggest change was how I saw her BPD issues. I no longer see myself like a victim of her BPD issues. Instead, I finally saw my contribution to how I drove her insane (slowly), and changed the culture in our marriage. And when I began to change, it's amazing how much she reciprocated as well.

This was something that other coaches and years of therapy (both couples and individual) were not able to help me see.

I think the thread above has completely misunderstood many of Geoffrey's principles. For example, his hypo-anti-synth model is SO MUCH more than just "deductive" logic, he is trying to present a whole new way of thinking that prevents people from carrying false assumptions and running into their blind spots for too long. This principle was revolutionary for me to finally see the truth of what I was doing, for my shift of identity, and a crucial principles to guide how I led conversations and interactions.

Further, I don't think he said that boundaries are bad in itself. I think like bugwaterguy said, he is saying that boundaries can be good when it's set with the right intentions and methods, but bad when set with the wrong ones. Like bugwaterguy, I was setting boundaries all wrong in ways that was worsening things for us.

Finally, I really do not think that Geoffrey just passes the work of others on his own. I really don't see anyone discussing principles like untethering, for example, like he does.

For those reading this, I would just say to you to do your research. To me, it was a bit odd that there was NO ONE saying good things about his program in this thread. It is an amazing program, and you can see it quite quickly if you just dig a tiny bit deeper. There are a lot of people who have lots of great things to say about it.

But again, do your own research. Decide for yourself. I just imagine what would my life be like if I did not do my own research and did not go the path I did.

[SaltyDawg]

Been a member of BPD family since December 2022.

When you first posted you were 'handed the divorce card'.  Are you still married to her?

I finally saw my contribution to how I drove her insane (slowly), and changed the culture in our marriage. And when I began to change, it's amazing how much she reciprocated as well.

Specifically, what was your contribution on driving her slowly insane?

How did she reciprocate?

Please be so kind as to give specific example on how this was accomplished?

This was something that other coaches and years of therapy (both couples and individual) were not able to help me see.

If it works, please help us see it as well.  What specifically worked in your relationship with your wife?

I think the thread above has completely misunderstood many of Geoffrey's principles. For example, his hypo-anti-synth model is SO MUCH more than just "deductive" logic, he is trying to present a whole new way of thinking that prevents people from carrying false assumptions and running into their blind spots for too long. This principle was revolutionary for me to finally see the truth of what I was doing, for my shift of identity, and a crucial principles to guide how I led conversations and interactions.

What false assumptions?  Please be specific?

What do you mean by 'blind spots'?  Specifics please?

What specific 'principle' are you referring to?

Can you give specific examples of the conversations and interactions that you 'led' in order to prevent your wife from divorcing you?

Again, please give specific examples that have worked for you?

Further, I don't think he said that boundaries are bad in itself. I think like bugwaterguy said, he is saying that boundaries can be good when it's set with the right intentions and methods, but bad when set with the wrong ones. Like bugwaterguy, I was setting boundaries all wrong in ways that was worsening things for us.

Can you be specific on the 'good' vs 'bad' boundaries when dealing with a borderline personality?

Tell us about the boundaries that you set in 'all wrong in ways' that worsened things for you?  That way we can learn from your mistakes and not make the same mistakes you did.

Finally, I really do not think that Geoffrey just passes the work of others on his own. I really don't see anyone discussing principles like untethering, for example, like he does.

For those reading this, I would just say to you to do your research. To me, it was a bit odd that there was NO ONE saying good things about his program in this thread. It is an amazing program, and you can see it quite quickly if you just dig a tiny bit deeper. There are a lot of people who have lots of great things to say about it.

I am up the challenge of doing your own research on it.  Since you have done it.  The best place to start doing our own research on it is by asking you specific questions since you obviously have a lot of 'good' to say about this program.  Can you please give specific examples of how amazing it is, please share?

What is the principle of 'untethering'?  Please be specific?

You say a lot of people have lots of great things to say about it.  I must assume that there is a group, similar to this one that you can point us to - please point us to it?  (other than comments on his youtube video, or advertisement on his website)

But again, do your own research. Decide for yourself. I just imagine what would my life be like if I did not do my own research and did not go the path I did.

My research starts here, with you, Daggy1974.  I would like start with you by answering all of the questions I have posed directly to you - being as specific as you can?

I am always open to new ideas as I willing to try just about anything, including tweaks that I have created for my own wife.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Daggy1974]

I'll try to answer the best I can. Note that I cannot possibly answer everything fully, there are a lot of questions here, many of which do not have simple answers (or many of which I do not know how to answer simply)

Sorry, but I just cannot spend a whole day responding to you, but hope me writing this shows that I really do want to help!

1) Yes, we're still married. December last year, she had already sought out a lawyer and already started the process without me knowing. Now, no one would know that she ever wanted divorce with dynamic we have now.

2) Regarding your question on how I slowly drove her insane, I would look up the videos on things like Paradox of Logic, 3 toxic approaches (The passive, stoic or active approach) or learn about the difference between falling vs. striving approaches, for example.

I learned that I would doing a lot of things I was doing that I thought was "helping", but actually degraded safety and increased her level of defense-mechanism and self-preservation (Which made her BPD worse).

e.g. Whenever she would stonewall me for DAYS, I used to get quite annoyed by that and unknowingly do things to increase pressure for her through the approach I said above. And when her stonewalling worsened, I would double down on doing the same things as I would get annoyed at her for not listening to me or being "difficult".

It was when I began to see these very subconscious "pitfalls" i was falling for that my approach began to change, and when I changed my approach (e.g. Actually did things to CREATE SAFETY when she stonewalled, for example) that everything began to spin in a more positive way.

That's ONE example, but sorry I am not about to write an essay here, I just don't have time to do that. Geoffrey has a lot of videos about this and discusses it with his LONG interviews with his clients in depth.

3) What worked? It wasn't just ONE thing. It was a culmination of MANY things coming together.

It's like the flywheel example. Imagine you have a big flywheel spinning in one direction, and someone asks you "What was the spin that got it to spin this fast?"

"Uh...All of it? Many spins culminating together?"

Internal shifts wise, it was a combination of me

- Getting rid of my victim mindsets
- Tetheredness to outcomes, circumstances and partner
- Getting rid of myy hypothetical thinking
- Getting rid of other toxic paradigms like FAE bias, etc...

And not to mention the 7 frameworks he teaches that helps me navigate pretty much all out conversations in a way that creates safety (and removes the need to self-preserve).

Again, I have been spending the last 10 months or so doing his program for 1-2 hours per day, 7 days per week, and his program is extremely long. I cannot summarize everything in a post.

But I threw some terms there for you so you can maybe use that to look up certain principles that Geoff talks about in his free content. Hoepfully, that gives you enough to understand what to look for to further your research.

4) An example of bad boundaries. Me setting a boundary with my wife that stonewalling was not okay, and that we need to talk openly as husband and wife.

What I was not aware of was all the toxic ways I responded to her every single time she expressed something to me in the past that made her reluctant to share stuff with me in the first place.

And part of that toxic thing was whenever I would impose what I think she should do/not do by setting boundaries like that in the first place.

This did not help her BPD at all.

Instead, now, whenever she stonewalls, I express to her how much I understand what she may be going through. How unsafe I made things for her, how complex the problem seems to be, and how it is OKAY for her to stonewall right now, because I would do the same.

And what's funny, that stuff usually opens her up!

That's just ONE example, of course.

5) Just look up untethering or watch his interviews. It does not take long to understand what it is.

Basically, the premise is that our human brains have been so wired to be addicted to looking at outcomes or circumstances to base our motivation/mood on.

This makes it impossible to reverse negative feedback loops happening in your marriage, in your internal state, and makes it very difficult for us to do the right things during tough moments.

6) Overall, Geoff has a ton of videos explaining a lot of his concepts + a masterclass which everyone needs to join before even applying + long interviews with his clients (many of whom I've become friends with via his community) and more...

When I say "do your own research", I mean, do your own research. Go to the primary source Not me - I'm just a secondary source. Watch his videos, his interviews, learn this stuff from the primary source!

But hope I gave you enough to go off of to further your research!

[Daggy1974]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that he also has a video that outlines his program. I remembered he sent it to me when I applied. Don't know what it is called, but I am sure you can just type in Geoffrey Setiawan Program or something to find it.

[BPDFamily]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that he also has a video that outlines his program. I remembered he sent it to me when I applied.

Daggy1974, up to now, "you" (collectively) have only posted teasers and endorsements for a paid life coach service which we have pulled and advised "you"  (collectively) that advertising/promoting paid services is against the guidelines.

This is a place for participating members to share, review, critique content.

"I bought it, you should buy it too" from a person connected with the paid service (and not active here) is not what the "Library: Content to critique for possible feature articles" section is about.

[Daggy1974]

I am honored that you think I am Geoffrey, but my name is Doug. I'm just trying to answer some of the questions from bugwaterguy and saltydawg.

Given that I've had experience with Geoffrey's program, I thought I'd give my two cents on it.

But if that's considered spam, then so be it.

[Skip]

"Doug", we welcome a content discussion from you. Why not open a new thread and discuss one of the life lessons you have learned that has been instrumental in improving your relationship.

You mentioned Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). You could write about that, or better yet, Correspondence Bias, which is probably more relevant for family members of a person with BPD traits. Lead a discussion on how these concepts relate to day to day social transactions with a person with BPD traits.

If you want to provide attributions in your discussion, cite those who developed these theories and/or their peer-reviewed literature. Please do not link or promote life coach services.

[Daggy1974]

Appreciate the explanation. I guess I was just confused as the title of this thread is "Geoffrey Setiawan: Online Reputation, Independent Review" and I was just answering some of the questions and addressing the concerns brought up here.

I wasn't even trying to advertise or endorse. I was just trying to explain my honest experience and provide my own "independent review" to hopefully help others here.

But I realize we may have different definitions of an "independent review".

I may be wrong, but it seems like anything that discusses anything positive about the program, or any opinions cast by actual clients of the program here may automatically be labeled as biased or no longer independent.

That said, I apologize if my posts have run counter to your rules of engagement. I've honestly never been asked to provide citations for a review and would never have thought that I needed to do so.

I want to respect the rules of your community, so I'll kindly bow out of this thread as I think I have misunderstood its purpose!

[Skip]

Normally we delete posts that hijack topics because they are distractions and members here are interested in content. But an author's extreme reaction to a review is noteworthy in itself. This review is 18 month old and the author continues to rebut the review by posting unverifiable "endorsements" rather than engage the content.

I want to respect the rules of your community, so I'll kindly bow out of this thread as I think I have misunderstood its purpose!

And so this respect includes sending private messages to members with a list of endorsements from a FaceBook post from 18 months ago? This begs the question of how would "Doug" even know about that FaceBook post if he first engaged with Setiawan 11 months go? How is this not an self endorsement or planted endorsment?

I would like to eventually respond to your questions above, but I am not sure how to write a response that meets all your guidelines. So to avoid getting this deleted, I will just say that those are all valid points which we have thought about, and addressed in multiple other videos.

So rather than address these valid criticisms (in your word), you are telling they were addresses in some unnameed videos. 

3) I get hundreds of comments per week that are negative. In fact, I recently had to move houses as we were getting death threats to our old home.

I'm not sure what you have done to evoke such a strong negative reaction from viewers, but our content review is simply and content review and doesn't go any further than that.

For readers, here is a complete record of all emails and other communication regarding this review.

email discussions with BPDFamily staff online discussions with moderators promotional posts removed by moderators

[Daggy1974]

This review is 18 month old and the author continues to rebut the review by posting unverifiable "endorsements" rather than engage the content.

You seem to be convinced that I am Geoffrey. Not sure what/how else I need to express that I am not. But if you want to insist I am a fraud, then so be it.

Like I said above, I really thought people were asking for a review of Geoffrey's program. So I gave mine. That was my way of trying to engage the content as I thought it would be better for people to go to the primary source. But if that is wrong, then I stopped, didn't I?

And so this respect includes sending private messages to members with a list of endorsements from a FaceBook post from 18 months ago?

SaltyDawg asked about the program and how he can learn more about it, so I answered. Are you saying I should have left the link to Geoffrey addressing this thread in here, and it would not get deleted?

Further, the message I sent SaltyDawg was BEFORE you explained to me the purpose of this thread. I really thought that SaltyDawg was genuinely asking to learn more about the program. Sorry if I mistook his question. But I re-read his questions to me 3 more times just now, and I would not have interpreted his questions any other way.

This begs the question of how would "Doug" even know about that FaceBook post if he first engaged with Setiawan 11 months go? How is this not an self endorsement or planted endorsement?

Like I explained. I saw this thread, and asked Geoffrey's team about it. His team kindly shared a video of him addressing this concern made a while back. This is not some top-secret video. He openly shares it with people who ask.

So rather than address these valid criticisms (in your word), you are telling they were addresses in some unnameed videos.

To be honest, I can imagine Geoffrey felt something similar to how I am feeling now.

I find myself at a loss for words not because I have nothing to say, but because I DO think what Geoffrey is doing is great and he really helped me. But it seems like being a person who does have positive opinions of Geoffrey makes me a pariah here and whatever I say instantly gets shot down.

This reminds me of something I did to my partner - I would twist, bend, and villainize the intentions of everything she did and said. I would always see the WORST in everything she does and says.

And when she finally was too scared to say anything, I took her silence as further proof that she was wrong and I was right, and basically beat down a dead horse.

But I never realized that she was silent NOT because she knew she was "wrong", but because she was too afraid to say anything, because anything she said was just twisted and bent so far from what it's actually meant to be.

And being in this thread, wow, I can tell you, it feels quite bad and hopeless. I mean, what can I say that won't be twisted and bent into painting me like some kind of fraud or trying to "promote" Geoffrey?

For readers, here is a complete record of all emails and other communication regarding this review.

If you do end up deleting my response, please include my responses into the list that you call "promotional posts removed by moderators". I have nothing to hide.

[Skip]

I find myself at a loss for words not because I have nothing to say

There are 3 videos reviewed here. Again, why not post content on that. Or post content explaining one of the concepts that you found life changing.

[Daggy1974]

I may just do that.

Just to confirm before I do - Am I allowed to LINK to the videos like you guys did above if I am intending to speak POSITIVE things about those videos, what I learned, and how they have benefited me?

Am I allowed to state POSITIVE things about those videos, what I learned, and how they have benefited me?

Or will mentioning anything positive about those videos automatically qualify as me trying to "promote" those videos?

And am I allowed to provide LINKS to additional videos or newer videos?

For example, I believe he has NEW versions of the video on boundaries/antithetic thinking/his opinions on therapy, and if our goal here is to discuss ideas, shouldn't we rely on the latest material?

[SaltyDawg]

Daggy/Doug,

I may just do that.
I look forward to hearing your personal opinion and how it specifically helped you out in your journey with your borderline wife.

Just to confirm before I do - Am I allowed to LINK to the videos like you guys did above if I am intending to speak POSITIVE things about those videos, what I learned, and how they have benefited me?

While I specifically cannot speak for the moderators here, I have posted video links in the past from youtube, so I personally don't see an issue with that.  As long as it isn't overt advertisement for a cash grab, and has meaningful and relevant content I don't see why it cannot be linked here.


Am I allowed to state POSITIVE things about those videos, what I learned, and how they have benefited me?

I am here to learn, I have just recently discovered a great way to communicate, and it seems to have accelerated my wife's recovery.  Only time will tell as I have only been using it for about a week.


Or will mentioning anything positive about those videos automatically qualify as me trying to "promote" those videos?

I would imagine it is how you present it.  If you say something along the lines "Go search for product xyz, so you can research about xyz I think it is good because I said so" that would appear to be a promotion. 

However, if you say I found out of abc in product xyz to be useful, and here is why I find it useful because of def, and ghi, which benefitted me which had the results of jkl. 

This way others here can ask you about more about jkl and how def and ghi made that happen. 

I know I am here to understand 'why' something works, and I will not blindly buy into something just because someone said so.  Especially when I found a great new tools for no monetary cost.  (requires time to learn and do)


And am I allowed to provide LINKS to additional videos or newer videos?

For example, I believe he has NEW versions of the video on boundaries/antithetic thinking/his opinions on therapy, and if our goal here is to discuss ideas, shouldn't we rely on the latest material?

I would agree with you on this.  There are always new developments, that may be more appropriate.  As long as you are specific in the how and why's, and how you personally benefited from it, I don't see an issue with this.

I look forward to your detailed response.

SD

P.S.  BTW, I did look up the terms you previously posted without the references to GS, it was mostly 'word salad' according to Google AI, so these concepts you mentioned are generally not accepted unless they are accompanied with detailed explanations for each term which would redefine Google's and Wikipedia's definitions of each term, which I did not see.  I hope you can articulate your concepts better, especially since Google gave some really weird answers to each of them.  Thanks for your time and attention to this matter, and I look forward to your articulated responses.

[Daggy1974]

Thank you. So, I think I understand why we seem to be misunderstanding each other quite a bit here and why you’re considering many of what I am saying to be “word salad”.

Your group seems to rely heavily on scientific principles that are already “established" extremely heavily.

And as a person working in a heavily logical field and operating with a very logical mind, I get it.

But if I can be honest, relying on this approach to help you with an abstract concept like romantic relationships provides some HEAVY limitations (and was one of my massive mistakes when learning these things).

I know this sounds crazy, but if you would let me explain this a bit better.

So I actually work in the field of AI, specifically working with large hedge funds to use AI to aid in microtrades. And being in this space, I can confidently say that while AI is great at synthesizing & regurgitating existing “established” information, it is terrible at making gray-area decisions based on abstract concepts (e.g., Dealing with morality, emotions, and the complexity & abstract nature of romantic relationships).

It is not hard to see the artifact of this - if we could use AI to make these abstract decisions, we would have done it already, and we would have solved world peace, but we have not

So why can’t AI solve these abstract problems?

One of these reasons is that while AI can aggregate TONS of data that are “established," what it aggregates is inherently incomplete because, as humans, we have NOT even come up with all of the “established” principles to answer these abstract questions ourselves. (e.g., We have not figured out all of the “established principles” to concretely answer questions of morality).

So when you look at the prevailing ways society is making AI smarter and better, we have learned that it is not adequate to just rely on “established scientific principles” but that there is a NEED to incorporate philosophical ideas as well.

Now, the thing about philosophy is that it explores the frontiers of ideas in a much more open way than science does/can. For example, if you look at the most novel philosophies on morality, you will see that MANY of them mention ideas that did not exist at that time (e.g., Sam Harris’ "Moral Landscape” back in 2010).

And while these principles aren’t immediately considered as “established" at the time, it would not be wise to simply dismiss them as “word salad” just because it’s a new term that isn’t yet Google-able because they could be premised on something very philosophically sound.

In fact, these new “philosophies” or new “un-established” paradigms are often precursors to the types of experiments and studies that scientists eventually conduct (How else would a scientist know what hypotheses to postulate without philosophy?) It is CRUCIAL to the scientific process and to further thought processes that bridge the gap of what we don’t know.

So why am I saying all this?

The words I mentioned above, like “untethering,” aren’t established scientific principles. But to me (and thousands of others who are currently exploring that idea deeply), they are based on extremely sound premises that practically allow us to bridge the gap & allow us to understand this abstract topic of relationships a lot better.

So, if one bringing up these “philosophical ideas” that have not become “established ideas" is considered a big no-no in this community, I understand, but I’m afraid that’s not a conversation I would like to be a part of (nor one that I feel is useful), because I don’t believe you can find the answers you need or have any form of productive conversations if one party automatically dismisses these “not-yet-established” ideas as "word-salad” immediately without investigating the premises they are based upon.

I’ve personally adopted this mindset of only valuing established principles for the longest time and only began realizing the answers that helped me bridge the gap in understanding the “abstract” topic of relationships when I opened myself to the value of new philosophical ideas.

I hope that makes sense.

So, if you are indeed open to learning these philosophical ideas, please let me know which of the principles I mentioned above you would like to learn about and discuss.

This will help me focus on what I explain to you to ensure they are relevant (Rather than me bringing up a philosophical idea that isn’t relevant to you).

If not, that’s fine too, as none of what I say will be seen as valuable to you anyway as I do believe that the true answers can only be found and explored when we are willing to go outside these “established scientific principles”.

Either way, I’m fine. I am just trying to help others with what I have come to learn that has helped my life in really amazing ways.

Let me know either way - I won't get my feelings hurt.