Sunday, August 19, 2012
I Will Always Care
Wishing a happy birthday to someone I care about. Whether this is understood or not, for you to have lasting happiness is of paramount importance. I meant -- and mean -- everything that I have said. :'-)
Monday, August 06, 2012
If You Know Someone Who Exhibits Suicidal Gestures, Are You a Real Friend to That Person . . . or a Sycophant?
Michael Jackson Syndrome?
There is a common story about many self-sabotaging celebrities that goes something like this. The celebrity is on a very self-destructive path, which causes visible harm to him or her, as well as trauma for those who care about the celebrity's well-being. The self-destructiveness can be manifested in substance abuse, eating disorders, self-cutting, criminal behavior (or falsely accusing others of criminal behavior), or symptoms of morbid mental illness.
Even though such self-destructive behaviors do not necessarily mean that the celebrity consciously desires to commit suicide, in this particular post I will place all such self-destructive behaviors under the category of "suicidal ideation," "suicidal gestures," and "suicidal imagery." (A psychologist might dispute that as being too broad on my part.)
Because of the celebrity's socially prominent status and because the celebrity acts outwardly confident in public, most people around him or her are reluctant to address this issue. Often, these people keep silent and pretend not to notice the disturbing suicidal gestures. Such a person who refrains from confronting the celebrity is not a real friend but a sycophant. By playing along with the celebrity's self-imposed illusion that the celebrity's suicidal gestures are safe and acceptable, the suicidal gestures are normalized and tacitly encouraged. Far from being conducive to the celebrity's long-term happiness and well-being, this "accepting friend" amounts to a passive "enabler." Think of Hans Christian Andersen's famous story "The Emperor's New Clothes."
Once in a while, someone close (or who was once close) to the celebrity does try to confront the celebrity about such dangers, or urges other people in the celebrity's circle to address the issue compassionately. When this happens, the whistleblower is often marginalized, ridiculed, and devalued. That's terribly tragic, because the whistleblower has shown himself to be a real friend -- exactly what those hangers-on, who have failed to address the issue, have not been. Those real friends -- the concerned whistleblowers -- are sidelined, and the self-defeating celebrity surrounds him- or herself with "yes" men and sycophants who play along with the illusion that everything is fine and normal.They then ostracize the whistleblower as the maladjusted troublemaker. (Again, it's like "The Emperor's New Clothes.")
A Problem for Non-Celebrities as Well
As I do not know the celebrities personally, I cannot claim omniscience about them; my interpretation of them can be mistaken. However, from what I've read of their biographies, I think the scenario I just verbalized can be largely attributed to Michael Jackson, Charlie Sheen, and Lindsay Lohan. But it doesn't just apply to famous entertainers.
For more than a year, I corresponded online with a very intelligent person whom I will call "Lucy." Lucy expressed interest in looking beautiful, and, of course, in the beginning that sounded perfectly safe. Increasingly, though, Lucy would post pictures of bony anorexic women (this is not humorous hyperbole; they were literally anorexic-looking) and labeling them as the sort of people she wanted to emulate. She posted disturbing photos of herself looking ever-thinner and frailer. She then wrote status updates complaining about really odd physical ailments, like temporary blindness. Such physical ailments are rare in someone of such a young age . . . but common among people who experience starvation and malnutrition. Frighteningly, a large number of "loyal friends" (translation: sycophants) clicked "like" on the disturbing pictures and announcements and encouraged it.
Eventually, a minority of Lucy's online friends -- people much wiser and ballsier than myself -- wrote to Lucy that they were concerned about her health. Not once did they morally criticize her or express full-blown rejection of her as a person . . . though she reacted as if she interpreted it that way. Lucy pointedly told these people that her self-starvation was none of their business.
If Your Suicidal Gestures Are Nobody Else's Business, Why Do You Post Them on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Wordpress?
The whistleblower friends thought that Lucy's response was rather inexplicable. Their thought was, "If you think that your suicidal imagery is none of my business, then why are you putting it on display in front of me and other people?"
Of course I can be wrong, but I think I know the reason. I suspect that on some level the suicidal gestures did disturb Lucy, and that is exactly why she shared images of it on Facebook. She did not want other people, however, to confirm her fear that she was placing herself in a dangerous situation. Insofar as a "cry for help" refers to the crier wanting other people to acknowledge the problem, this was not a traditional "cry for help." Rather, it was like some kind of game of "chicken" in which Lucy implicitly dared other people to comment on the dramatic and alarming change in appearance.
Insofar as people refrained from negative comment, or even complimented the disturbing images, Lucy felt vindicated that her suicidal gestures were actually safe and acceptable, and that her painful health problems were completely unrelated to her self-imposed starvation. The sycophants granted Lucy this short-term gratification, giving her "social proof" that the starvation wasn't a form of self-harm. As for the whistleblower friends who raised the issue, the sycophants reprimanded them and piously told them that they were the assholes.
I blocked Lucy on Facebook because I did not want to lend tacit support to that self-destructive tendency. I envy those who wrote to her about the issue, though, as they were the ones most helpful toward her, even though such positive effects are not obvious in the present. I have known someone who is similarly self-destructive and who similarly exhibits "hints" of the inner pain. This person has informed me that this person has a long history of self-injury and of contemplating suicide. Almost two years ago, this person started posting a lot of suicidal imagery on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Wordpress. In this case, I did confront the person.
How to Address a Self-Destructive Person Compassionately Without Forcing an Argument
If you are in a similar situation, and you strongly care about that person -- the "Lucy" in your own life -- I urge you to address the issue. If you notice something is going on, and you say nothing, that helps normalize the suicidal ideation and self-defeating behavior. It implies that the self-destructiveness is normal and acceptable. If someone has routinely displayed suicidal gestures to you in person or online (like on LinkedIn or Facebook), then it doesn't really fly for that person to say, "This is none of your business!" When someone has, on more than one occasion, shoved his or her suicidal imagery in your face, he or she has made it your business. If he or she fully believed that the suicidal imagery was not your business, he or she would not have made it visible to you.
Often people are reluctant to confront their "Lucy" because they have this rationale: "My friend can be very scary and temperamental sometimes; even my friend's great height is physically intimidating. If I mention that I notice the suicidal imagery, it will just start a big argument. She will hold a grudge and not seek help, and nothing good will result from the confrontation. It will only make our relationship awkward."
In the past two years, I have become very familiar with that feeling -- that fear from intimidation. Quite frankly, though, if someone is exhibiting suicidal ideation and expects you not to address that, then the relationship is already awkward. More importantly, I think there is a way to address the issue compassionately without forcing an argument. I suggest that to your own "Lucy," you say something like this:
I strongly value your friendship; you mean a lot to me. When I see the [here, make a brief list of the disturbing gestures you've witnessed, such as the dead-body imagery or the defensive insistence on wearing the exact same clothes every day --S.H.], I can't help but think that you must have a lot going on. You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to. But I want to let you know that if you ever do want to talk about it, I am here for you. :'-)I think that gesture is even more powerful when it comes from a close relative, like an uncle or aunt. If the person you care about -- your "Lucy" -- happens to respond to you in an abusive/bossy/devaluing fashion, I recommend that you ignore it and reaffirm, "I know what I know. If you ever want to talk about it, I am here for you. :'-) " And if that person provides no response, or responds dismissively, that's OK; at least you showed where you stand.
Note that that approach does not force an argument, demand that the person change, or cast moral disapproval. It does, however, let the person know that you are aware of the suicidal gestures and that that is not something you condone. It conveys, through action, that you reject the suicidal gestures but still value the person qua person. Hence, it shows the person that you accept him or her while you refuse to play along with the charade of normalcy -- that you refuse to help normalize the pathology. I concede that the person who needs help might resent it as patronizing if you take this approach. But all in all, it's the best available alternative.
I think that everyone has a right to his or her own harmless eccentricity. That is not the same as being an idle bystander when noticing a friend's suicidal gestures. This cannot be emphasized enough: Suicidal gestures are not a lifestyle choice.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Why I Don't Have Winston Smith's Job, and Why I Don't Delete Historical Fact
Nothing exists but the truth. And to sacrifice the truth is to sacrifice everything.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Anne Hathaway on Doing What You Love Never Being a Sacrifice
Stuart K. Hayashi
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. But, as Amy Peikoff pointed out, a recent interview with Anne Hathaway seems to suggest that the actress understands an important truth about sacrifice.
In conventional language, people often speak of giving up anything as a "sacrifice." If parents give up some leisure time they wanted for themselves in favor of spending quality time with their kids, lots of people call that a parental "sacrifice." But, as Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, it isn't. It is not a true sacrifice in the circumstance that the parents value their children more than they value that "alone time." They give up the "alone time," a lesser value, for their greater value, which is the well-being of their children. Far from being a net loss to your life, this is actually a net profit in terms of long-range happiness. When an entrepreneur gives up a unit of merchandise he values less, to gain the revenue he wants more, the net gain in value is a profit. The same logic applies to this emotional tradeoff.
That is an important distinction, because to call that rational tradeoff a sacrifice is to conflate it with the very serious sacrifices that the collectivist leaders of our culture often demand of you. When the advocates of collectivism call for sacrifice, they invoke some arbitrary duty of yours to abdicate your greatest values to appease some "higher good" that you actually value less. When they demand that you give up your precious time to take care an adult relative that has shown you nothing but cruelty since childhood, for example, that is a sacrifice. You relinquish what you value more (your time) for something you value less (a cruel person with whom your sole connection is blood).
When you are expected to give up your time and possessions to that which you value less -- such as strangers or an endangered subspecies of bog critter of which you care nothing -- that is a sacrifice. It's bad enough when people try to extract such sacrifices through social pressure. But it's particularly grueling when the government imposes such sacrifices by the threat of physical force. Remember that laws and taxes are ultimately enforced at gunpoint.
Naturally, people recognize that benevolent tradeoffs are necessary in life. Sometimes you do have to give up important-but-lesser-values, like your time, to care for entities that you know yourself to value more highly, like your children. When someone labels those necessary -- and still self-interested -- tradeoffs as sacrifices, that encourages that person to psychologically equivocate those tradeoffs with the real sacrifices: the arbitrary demand that you turn over greater values to lesser ones. A true sacrifice requires a victim. The very word victim comes from victima, which means sacrificial animal.
One might charge that such a distinction simply amounts to semantics. A critic may say that the sacrifices I inveigh against are "undesirable sacrifices," whereas the benevolent tradeoffs I speak of, wherein someone spiritually profits by letting go of lesser values to gain greater ones, are "desirable sacrifices" or even "sacrifices that are profitable in the long run." I recall that religious-right conservative apologist George Gilder even states that when an entrepreneur makes an investment and pays off his business expenses -- all in the quest for future profit -- the short-term expenses amount to "sacrifice." But that's silly; "ultimately desirable sacrifice" is a conflict in terms. To say that an action is a "sacrifice" is to categorize it as undesirable per se. Ayn Rand's interpretation makes more sense.
This brings us to Anne Hathaway. Perhaps she does not agree with me, or would not approve of my interpretation. After all, she even hosted a fundraiser for the 2012 re-election of President Obama. :'-( But I like her particular choice of words in this interview, beginning at the 37:51 mark:
Incidentally, Anne Hathaway publicly praised The Fountainhead in 2005 (see here) and, despite some unspecified reservations, Atlas Shrugged as well in 2012 (here).
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. But, as Amy Peikoff pointed out, a recent interview with Anne Hathaway seems to suggest that the actress understands an important truth about sacrifice.
In conventional language, people often speak of giving up anything as a "sacrifice." If parents give up some leisure time they wanted for themselves in favor of spending quality time with their kids, lots of people call that a parental "sacrifice." But, as Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, it isn't. It is not a true sacrifice in the circumstance that the parents value their children more than they value that "alone time." They give up the "alone time," a lesser value, for their greater value, which is the well-being of their children. Far from being a net loss to your life, this is actually a net profit in terms of long-range happiness. When an entrepreneur gives up a unit of merchandise he values less, to gain the revenue he wants more, the net gain in value is a profit. The same logic applies to this emotional tradeoff.
That is an important distinction, because to call that rational tradeoff a sacrifice is to conflate it with the very serious sacrifices that the collectivist leaders of our culture often demand of you. When the advocates of collectivism call for sacrifice, they invoke some arbitrary duty of yours to abdicate your greatest values to appease some "higher good" that you actually value less. When they demand that you give up your precious time to take care an adult relative that has shown you nothing but cruelty since childhood, for example, that is a sacrifice. You relinquish what you value more (your time) for something you value less (a cruel person with whom your sole connection is blood).
When you are expected to give up your time and possessions to that which you value less -- such as strangers or an endangered subspecies of bog critter of which you care nothing -- that is a sacrifice. It's bad enough when people try to extract such sacrifices through social pressure. But it's particularly grueling when the government imposes such sacrifices by the threat of physical force. Remember that laws and taxes are ultimately enforced at gunpoint.
Naturally, people recognize that benevolent tradeoffs are necessary in life. Sometimes you do have to give up important-but-lesser-values, like your time, to care for entities that you know yourself to value more highly, like your children. When someone labels those necessary -- and still self-interested -- tradeoffs as sacrifices, that encourages that person to psychologically equivocate those tradeoffs with the real sacrifices: the arbitrary demand that you turn over greater values to lesser ones. A true sacrifice requires a victim. The very word victim comes from victima, which means sacrificial animal.
One might charge that such a distinction simply amounts to semantics. A critic may say that the sacrifices I inveigh against are "undesirable sacrifices," whereas the benevolent tradeoffs I speak of, wherein someone spiritually profits by letting go of lesser values to gain greater ones, are "desirable sacrifices" or even "sacrifices that are profitable in the long run." I recall that religious-right conservative apologist George Gilder even states that when an entrepreneur makes an investment and pays off his business expenses -- all in the quest for future profit -- the short-term expenses amount to "sacrifice." But that's silly; "ultimately desirable sacrifice" is a conflict in terms. To say that an action is a "sacrifice" is to categorize it as undesirable per se. Ayn Rand's interpretation makes more sense.
This brings us to Anne Hathaway. Perhaps she does not agree with me, or would not approve of my interpretation. After all, she even hosted a fundraiser for the 2012 re-election of President Obama. :'-( But I like her particular choice of words in this interview, beginning at the 37:51 mark:
Caitlin King, Associated Press, interviewer (referring to Anne Hathaway cutting off her long hair for Les Miserables): "That's exactly what he's talking about; making sacrifices for the roles that you're passionate about. Can you talk about those sacrifices?"
Anne Hathaway: "They don't feel like sacrifices when you're making them. I mean I love what I do for a living, and getting to transform is one of the best parts of it. So I never think about it like that."
Incidentally, Anne Hathaway publicly praised The Fountainhead in 2005 (see here) and, despite some unspecified reservations, Atlas Shrugged as well in 2012 (here).
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Narcissus Didn't Love Himself
Narcissism -- in both the clinical and colloquial sense -- is
commonly considered malignant self-love. But today it occurred to
me that the Narcissus of Greek myth doesn't really love himself; he
loves his reflection, which is merely a surface image. The image has
visual traits derived from the real Narcissus, but it is far from
encapsulating the
whole person.
Narcissus focuses on maintaining the image -- just as some people maintain their outward persona -- while the needs of the true self go neglected. Narcissus was therefore self-sacrificial; he sacrificed the life and fulfillment of the true self for a much lower priority, an image.
Narcissus focuses on maintaining the image -- just as some people maintain their outward persona -- while the needs of the true self go neglected. Narcissus was therefore self-sacrificial; he sacrificed the life and fulfillment of the true self for a much lower priority, an image.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Look Alive, Mate
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Dan Brown Code
Dan Brown's novel Angels & Demons opens with an elderly researcher being brutally murdered by a shadowy assassin. Then Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon enters the scene and meets a sexy young woman related to the murder victim. Together, they use their knowledge of history to find hidden messages in Renaissance artwork, slowly uncovering a grand conspiracy involving an ancient Secret Society and its feud with the Catholic church. *SPOILER ALERT!* A character perceived to be benevolent and on Langdon's side, is actually a heinous villain!
On the other hand:
Dan Brown's novel Da Vinc Code opens with an elderly researcher being brutally murdered by a shadowy assassin. Then Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon enters the scene and meets a sexy young woman related to the murder victim. Together, they use their knowledge of history to find hidden messages in Renaissance artwork, slowly uncovering a grand conspiracy involving an ancient Secret Society and its feud with the Catholic church. *SPOILER ALERT!* A character perceived to be benevolent and on Langdon's side, is actually a heinous villain!
On the other hand:
Dan Brown's novel Da Vinc Code opens with an elderly researcher being brutally murdered by a shadowy assassin. Then Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon enters the scene and meets a sexy young woman related to the murder victim. Together, they use their knowledge of history to find hidden messages in Renaissance artwork, slowly uncovering a grand conspiracy involving an ancient Secret Society and its feud with the Catholic church. *SPOILER ALERT!* A character perceived to be benevolent and on Langdon's side, is actually a heinous villain!
Friday, March 02, 2012
Faithless
I don't want you to have faith in me. :-/
I want you to have evidence-supported confidence in me. ^_^
I want you to have evidence-supported confidence in me. ^_^
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
March 1 Is Self-Injury Awareness Day
"Self-injury" refers to repeated, deliberate acts of physically harming oneself as a way to distract oneself from painful emotions. An example of self-harm is using a blade to make cuts on one's own wrists.
Someone can be a self-injurer without having Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Moreover, someone can have BPD without being a self-injurer. However, it should be noted that having a history of self-injury and self-harm is one of the nine main criteria for diagnosing BPD: "Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, threats or self-injuring behavior such as cutting..." Of course, it is important to remember that even if one's self-injuring has gone into remission, that, by itself, is not proof of recovery from BPD if other self-sabotaging symptoms remain present.
March 1 is Self-Injury Awareness Day. Its symbol is the orange ribbon, as shown here:
A reminder to those who have a history of self-injury: you don't have to face this alone. There are people who -- even if they have not self-injured themselves -- understand what you have gone through, and will always care about you:
A reminder to those who have a history of self-injury: you don't have to face this alone. There are people who -- even if they have not self-injured themselves -- understand what you have gone through, and will always care about you:
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Why So Ludicrous?
Back in the spring of 2008, I met a very smug real-estate agent who bragged about going back to university and taking philosophy classes. Then, as if no one had ever heard anything like this before, he happily recounted an inane "thought experiment" his philosophy instructor relayed to him.
The philosophy teacher said, "Imagine that I issue this threat to you: by the end of the day, you must choose someone you know in your neighborhood -- anyone but me or you -- for me to murder. If you choose no one by the end of the day, I dynamite a ferryboat full of people. Would you rather have the blood of a single person on your hands, or would you rather keep your hands clean, even though it results in more people dying?"
Then, as if explaining some grand discovery, the smug real-estate agent said, "The lesson was that if you refuse to choose the person murdered, your ethics are deontological like Kant's. But if you capitulate to the terrorist threat, you're a consequentialist in ethics."
I wanted to ask that real-estate guy exactly what sort of joker was teaching that philosophy class. A few weeks later, I went to see The Dark Knight and learned that that joker was indeed The Joker.
The philosophy teacher said, "Imagine that I issue this threat to you: by the end of the day, you must choose someone you know in your neighborhood -- anyone but me or you -- for me to murder. If you choose no one by the end of the day, I dynamite a ferryboat full of people. Would you rather have the blood of a single person on your hands, or would you rather keep your hands clean, even though it results in more people dying?"
Then, as if explaining some grand discovery, the smug real-estate agent said, "The lesson was that if you refuse to choose the person murdered, your ethics are deontological like Kant's. But if you capitulate to the terrorist threat, you're a consequentialist in ethics."
I wanted to ask that real-estate guy exactly what sort of joker was teaching that philosophy class. A few weeks later, I went to see The Dark Knight and learned that that joker was indeed The Joker.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Persuasion and Conviction
Stuart K. Hayashi
A guy once told me, "There's a definitional difference between 'convincing' someone and 'persuading' him. To persuade someone is to influence him into taking some action he otherwise would not have taken. By contrast, to convince someone is to simply influence him into holding a certain belief in his head that he otherwise would not have held; convincing someone is not related to eliciting a certain action from him."
To this, I replied, "You have persuaded me that you are correct! I have been convinced, from this point forward, to remember that distinction."
A guy once told me, "There's a definitional difference between 'convincing' someone and 'persuading' him. To persuade someone is to influence him into taking some action he otherwise would not have taken. By contrast, to convince someone is to simply influence him into holding a certain belief in his head that he otherwise would not have held; convincing someone is not related to eliciting a certain action from him."
To this, I replied, "You have persuaded me that you are correct! I have been convinced, from this point forward, to remember that distinction."
Monday, December 19, 2011
I Will Always Care
I told someone, "The only way I will ever again feel safe in your presence is if you return to seeing a mental health professional on a regular basis." Should this person ever visit this blog, I want something to be understood.
I said that not because I do not care about you, but exactly because I do. You can go on looking very confident and outwardly successful to everyone else and, as you well know, I have never had any objections to that. But it's simply not enough; you are due for so much more and so much better. What you deserve is that lasting happiness that Aristotle called eudaemonia -- Greek for "good spirits." It refers to an ability to feel at peace within the confines of your own psyche, to be comfortable in your own skin and in the body that Nature gave you, to accept yourself and see in yourself the charm and beauty and compassion that others have seen in you on those occasions when you let them. To know that there is nothing unnatural or uncomfortable about one day having children and starting a family of your own. No, starting a family is not any kind of duty or moral obligation; it is simply something very rewarding, an enterprise grander and more challenging than any business scheme I could cook up. So much happiness is possible to you, and just begging to be allowed entry into your life. And, as you are cognizant, that happiness reaching you is incumbent upon the hard and disciplined choice to accept it.
Contrary to your fears, no one sees you as some specimen to be put in a laboratory, poked or prodded. You are never on some stage to be judged harshly by anyone. And no matter how strangely you may look or dress, no one is staring at you; people are much too consumed by their own worries or insecurities to project negative thoughts upon you. No one plots against you, no one conspires against you, no one is trying to outsmart you, no one wants to use you. On the contrary, everyone believes in your greatness as a person and is rooting for you to win at life.
A return to psychiatric care does not have to be a prison sentence. Nor must it feel like one. In Hawaii, it would be you -- and no one else -- who would ultimately be in control. You could fire any mental health professional who did not meet your standards of competence and care. As far as American mental health professionals are concerned, it is the patient who is the boss. Getting the care that you need is a form of self-determination and self-empowerment. Far from submitting to the dictates of anyone else, receiving quality care is a form of psychological liberation, no less important than political and economic freedom. I want you to be happy. But far more important than that is that I want you to want you to be happy.
You told me that I cannot force any of this upon you, and of course that is true. I was the one who first told you, "I cannot persuade anyone to do anything. I can only encourage you to persuade yourself to do something." That applies here. I force no one's hand. I wish happiness for you. And I unabashedly plea that you put at least as much priority as I do upon the joys and sense of serenity just waiting to be experienced.
Whatever you do, I will always give a damn, irrepressibly. I have no regrets about knowing you; I only have gratitude for it and I face no qualms in expressing that. Just as you have every right to your own choices, I have a right to mine. Of course I can move on and put the emphasis on my writing projects. My doing so will never mean that I have forgotten anything. I will continue to remember and to care. That is my own prerogative. :'-)
Friday, December 16, 2011
Identity Disturbances
There are sudden and dramatic shifts in self-image, characterized by shifting goals, values and vocational aspirations. There may be sudden changes in opinions and plans about career, sexual identity, values and types of friends. These individuals may suddenly change from the role of a needy supplicant for help to a righteous avenger of past mistreatment. Although they usually have a self-image that is based on being bad or evil, individuals with borderline personality disorder may at times have feelings that they do not exist at all. Such experiences usually occur in situations in which the individual feels a lack of a meaningful relationship, nurturing and support.I don't thinks Psych Central means that a BPD sufferer's entire outward persona will completely shift from minute to minute or day to day (although some mood swings can be like that). Rather, it's more along the lines of someone "searching for identity" the way a high-schooler would. One would can have certain career goals in mind and have a certain type of fashion for some months or some years. Then some stressful triggering event can cause this person to immediately switch all of this around so that the clothing choices and career goal will be completely different. Those who do not have BPD can also sometimes make sudden changes. However, those with BPD often make sudden changes in manner that those around them finding more jarring and confusing. A helpful article on this subject is found here.
As recovered Borderline Rachel Reiland has pointed out, sometimes this identity confusion can manifest in the BPD sufferer wearing a sort of mask, trying to always appear confident and friendly to mask a gnawing self-doubt and extreme predisposition to being bothered by what other people say. Someone suffering from BPD identity disturbances will not have an integrated, consistent personality, but instead have a highly fragmented personality, switching back and forth. The true self will emerge when one feels safe. However, once one feels threatened in some way, the impervious false self emerges as a form of "protection." Sadly, this "confident" false self happens to wall off the person from true emotional bonds, thus becoming a maladaptive obstacle to finding true lasting happiness. :'-(
Some psychologists can mistake this phenomenon for Multiple Personality Disorder. However, there is an important difference. When someone with Multiple Personalities switches from one personality to another, the switch is unconscious; the person doesn't know it is happening. By contrast, the Borderline with a disturbed, "fragmented" personality does have some conscious awareness of when she or he is changing personalities as the result of some emotional trigger. Again, Rachel Reiland explains that.
The identity confusion can even come in the form of changes in perceived sexual orientation.
But you are not cursed permanently to suffer with this. A return to psychiatric care can be of enormous help with the proper diagnosis and committed mental health professionals. Please take your happiness very seriously. :'-)
Friday, December 02, 2011
'Walk a Mile in My Shoes'...
A guy once told me that I was obliviously inconsiderate, and that I would only regain his respect once I had learned what it was like to walk a mile in his shoes.
I wanted his respect back, and so I decided to try exactly what he said.
It didn't work.
He didn't appreciate how I took and used his footwear without asking.
I wanted his respect back, and so I decided to try exactly what he said.
It didn't work.
He didn't appreciate how I took and used his footwear without asking.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Helpful Online Exchange About BPD, Gender Identity Confusion, and Confusion on Sexual Orientation
On my Facebook page about BPD,
I had a helpful exchange with someone back on March 16, 2011, on the
subjects of Borderline Personality Disorder, gender identity confusion,
and confusion on sexual orientation. That specific exchange is over here.
Of course, it is important to bear in mind that someone confused over
gender identity is not necessarily undecided on sexual orientation, and
someone undecided on sexual orientation is not necessarily confused
about gender identity. Moreover, someone can have BPD and not be
confused in either area.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
'Non-Bizarre' Delusions
Among the diagnostic criteria for BPD, one is the presence of "transient stress-related paranoid ideation, delusions or severe dissociative symptoms." I am going to clarify that "delusions," in this context, refers almost exclusively to what psychologists term "non-bizarre delusions," as opposed to "bizarre delusions." This, of course, raises the question, "What is a 'non-bizarre delusion,' as opposed to a 'bizarre delusion'?"
A delusion is a paranoid, frightful belief one holds in the absence of evidence and even in defiance of all evidence.
A "bizarre delusion" is an implausible delusion that defies all laws of science. If I insisted to you that dove feathers were sprouting from my face, when you could clearly see that that wasn't happening, that would be an example of me holding a "bizarre delusion."
A delusion is a paranoid, frightful belief one holds in the absence of evidence and even in defiance of all evidence.
A "bizarre delusion" is an implausible delusion that defies all laws of science. If I insisted to you that dove feathers were sprouting from my face, when you could clearly see that that wasn't happening, that would be an example of me holding a "bizarre delusion."
that is not necessarily implausible -- and which actually comports with the laws of physics and science -- but still lacks evidence. For instance, if I said that everyone ogled me and wanted to rape me, that would not defy the laws of physics; that's not impossible. But if you observe that, in fact, people interact with me all the time without ogling me, then you may be observing me having a
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Onward and Upward
Stuart K. Hayashi
"Inspirational" -- to inspire and be rational. ^_^
It is no longer enough for me to engage in rationality. Henceforth, I must engage in inspirationality! :-D
"Inspirational" -- to inspire and be rational. ^_^
It is no longer enough for me to engage in rationality. Henceforth, I must engage in inspirationality! :-D
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
'Having an Empathy Problem' Versus 'Having Zero Empathy'
Stuart K. Hayashi
What I am about to say is a generalization about persons suffering from currently-untreated Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Naturally, these generalizations do not necessarily apply to all people with BPD at all times. This assessment is based on what I have observed in my own experiences, plus what some persons diagnosed with BPD have written to me. Bear in mind that those persons do not necessarily agree with everything written on this blog. Anyhow, I will sometimes refer to persons with currently-untreated BPD as "Borderlines." This should not be taken as a pejorative; the locution is used for the purpose of making my blog post easier to read. Likewise, the loved ones of Borderlines will sometime be called "Non-Borderlines," "Nons" for short. When discussing a Borderline, I will switch between the pronouns "him" and "her."
Their Aloof Pose Does Not Prove That They Never Think About You
Love ones have often been on the receiving end of very inconsiderate treatment from the Borderlines in their lives. And when currently-untreated Borderlines are confronted with this fact, their loved ones are often horrified by the currently-untreated Borderlines' evident refusal to show remorse for this treatment, or to even make any sincere promise to change it. Based on the Borderlines' blase-at-best reaction, many loved ones often conclude that Borderlines are sociopaths who have zero capacity to empathize. I can see why such loved ones would infer as much. However, such a conclusion is misleading. If you have someone in your life who has undiagnosed, untreated BPD -- and refrains from exhibiting any real remorse for mistreatment of you -- chances are that this person does have genuine remorse for this mistreatment . . . but would be loathe to admit it to you.
Even as prestigious a research psychologist as Simon Baron-Cohen (cousin to the famous actor who plays Borat and Bruno) grievously equivocates Borderlines with sociopaths. A news article about Baron-Cohen's latest book summarizes Baron-Cohen's conclusion this way:
The news article's author is not putting words into Baron-Cohen's mouth. Direct quotations from Baron-Cohen indicate the accuracy of the prior paragraph's description of Baron-Cohen's view. Baron-Cohen himself says that he equates every "personality disorder" with "a lack of empathy because many of the personality disorders, like the psychopath, or people with borderline personality disorder are just operating on a totally self-centred mode."
Both Simon Baron-Cohen and the newspaper writer fallaciously equate ethics with "social interaction," the implication being that you would have no need for morality if you were stranded on a desert island all by yourself. As you know that I support a humane and considerate Ethical Egoism, you know I reject the "zero-empathy-equals-evil" presumptions of Baron-Cohen and that newspaper writer. But as this blog concerns itself merely with explanations of BPD and Body Dysmorphia, I will not digress into a long discussion about the ethics of rational self-interest. I will merely continue about BPD.
This ABC News piece likewise cites a psychologist as it equates BPD with a sociopathic paucity of empathy:
Once, a person with a beautifully high level of empathy had seriously told me, "I wonder if I'm a sociopath. When other people want me to cry about the things I do to them, they get no such response. I just go numb; I don't have a ability to feel."
Knowing this person very well, I replied, "I don't think you lack such a capacity; I have seen and felt your warmth and caring. I think what's really going on is that you feel so strongly, that it it causes a strain and hurt more severe than that experienced by others. It's not that you feel less than they, but more. To defend you against too much pain, the emotional parts of you go numb so as to protect you."
Then this person made a really weird blank look (more of this will be described later). The person then said something very quickly, and the tone would have sounded cocky if it weren't full of obvious defensiveness. What was said was, "No, I don't go numb at all. I'm just logical."
At the time, I scoffed at the notion that this person could be a sociopath; this person had -- and has -- a highly empathic nature. I now understand why this was said, and why very sane, normal people would accuse this person of being lacking in empathy. They would make this accusation because they do not fully understand this person's psychiatric condition. The most tragic part is that this person, too, misunderstood this person's own issues with empathy. :'-(
Two Forms of Empathy
First we should clarify that there are two types of empathy -- cognitive empathy and affective empathy. You are engaging in cognitive empathy when, on an intellectual level, you understand how someone else is feeling. By contrast, you experience affective empathy when you observe someone else's emotion and, as a direct consequence of this observation, experience the very same emotion.
If I observe that someone else is sad, but I myself do not feel sad about this, then I am experiencing cognitive empathy but not affective empathy. Conversely, if I see someone is sad, and I consequently feel sad myself, then I am having empathy on both the cognitive and affective levels.
In many cases, a functioning autistic is low on cognitive empathy but is still capable of experiencing affective empathy. That is, if your body language gives off the subtle cues about your feelings that are normally given off, the functioning autistic will comprehend none of it; he will not know what you are feeling. However, if you make it very obvious that you are sad or frightened to an extreme degree, the functioning autistic will probably likewise become sad or frightened as well.
A sociopathic con man pretty much operates in the opposite fashion -- he has high cognitive empathy but low affective empathy. He is able to manipulate and con you precisely because he can carefully read your body language and tone, and therefrom accurately infer what you are feeling. However, when he sees the pain that his actions have caused you, he is genuinely unable to feel bad along with you, or to experience authentic remorse. Insofar as he is remorseful, that remorse is shallow and will be soon forgotten.
Many people with currently-untreated, undiagnosed BPD have issues with empathy that are similar to those of functioning autistics and sociopaths. However, there are important differences.
Why Do Borderlines Appear Unsympathetic to Your Distress?
An astonishing number of currently-untreated, undiagnosed people with BPD symptoms like to pride themselves on their ability to read people; they see themselves as having high cognitive empathy. However, in my experience, the same people-with-BPD-symptoms have actually made some glaring social gaffes, oblivious to their own outlandishness. I know of one case where this person thought that she had impressed everyone in the room when, in actuality, her eccentric behavior made most of the people in the room feel awkward and uncomfortable. Sometimes this person had high cognitive empathy, but there were commensurate occasions on which her cognitive empathy was low.
When it comes to the matter of affective empathy, consider the emotional instability common to Borderlines who are currently not in treatment but ought to return to it. When the currently-untreated Borderline is feeling safe and secure, it is very easy for the Borderline to emotionally bond with you and to feel as you do. However, it may be the case that this Borderline can easily be "triggered" by some stimulus -- such as by some type of mention of sex or reproductive anatomy -- that elicits a panicky anxiety attack from the Borderline. During these panic/anxiety attacks, the Borderline is often caught in a fight-or-flight response. Even though, to you, the Borderline is getting upset about nothing, the Borderline can seriously feel something like, "Aaaaaauuuuuckk!! I'm dying!!!" (This is not hyperbole. The distress is that severe.)
BPD Anxiety
When the Borderline is triggered, the Borderline will interpret the trigger as some kind of life-or-death emergency. In those moments, the currently-untreated Borderline's concern for anyone else's feelings or well-being goes out the window. During moments of panic -- triggered by rather harmless stimuli -- the Borderline will be low on both cognitive- and affective empathy.
Recall that among the main symptoms of BPD are emotional instability, chronic emptiness, a proneness to anger, self-destructiveness, suicidal thoughts, and general anxiety. As emotional pain is something of a norm for Borderlines, too many of them develop the maladaptive practice of suppressing their emotions and trying to become emotionally numb. I recall someone very dear to me who learned to repeatedly become stoic in this way. This person often became upset at the slightest provocation. It was not initially obvious when this person became upset. When this person was triggered and became upset, this person's face suddenly became weirdly blank, with this person's mouth stiffening. It looked like some kind of "poker face," but with some resignation and tiredness, too. Although the person had learned to hide the discomfort by putting on a blank, stoic expression, you could still detect the tension at the temples.
The point is that even when this person had those panic/anxiety attacks, the person developed this blank, stone-faced expression. I suspect it is because the person misapprehends that admitting her own vulnerabilities would be some kind of show of weakness. My educated guess is that some currently-untreated Borderlines misperceive that confronting and accepting this vulnerability would be some sort of relinquishment of power and control. In fact, the opposite is true -- to let the vulnerabilities show would be the manifestation of true confidence and courage and strength. Moreover, it would not be giving up control and power but gaining the only forms of power and control that matter -- the power and control over oneself that comes with taking responsibility for one's own mental well-being.
Yes, this person easily became upset. As a maladaptive -- and ultimately unhelpful -- attempt to manage the anger or hurt, this person had become accustomed to numbing and repressing such emotions so as to not "lose cool" in public. The long-term negative effects of this emotion-suppression technique are explained by a psychologist here and by a recovered Borderline here.
And one big, panic-inducing "trigger" for many currently-untreated Borderlines is any attempt on your part to confront them on how their inconsiderate behavior is hurting you and of how you wish they would see the situation from your vantage point. When you try to very gently discuss this matter with the currently-untreated Borderline, the currently-untreated Borderline might react in one or both of these ways:
In those moments of confrontation, the currently-untreated Borderline probably does show a deficiency in empathy. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that the currently-untreated Borderline has never felt any authentic affective empathy for you.
A sociopath is someone perpetually incapable of experiencing strong affective empathy. This applies all or at least most of the time. By contrast, a currently-untreated Borderline will very easily feel affective empathy for you when she is relaxed. But this currently-treated Borderline will, in times of stress, experience momentary -- but very brutal and crushing -- lapses in empathy for you. Simon Baron-Cohen is all mixed up. A currently-untreated Borderline's momentary lapses in affective empathy -- and stubborn refusal to be contrite with his or her victims -- should not be conflated with a sociopath's continuous and persistent absence of affective empathy.
A Vicious Cycle Going in . . . A Perfect Circle . . .
If you're a Non, and have tried to maintain a close social bond with a currently-untreated Borderline, then you might have gone through this painful cycle:
This cycle pretty much repeats itself -- getting worse and angrier with every repetition -- until the Non finally gives up and cuts the Borderline out of his life. Years later, the Non probably believes that the Borderline still feels no remorse. In truth, when the Borderline looks back on these events -- and refrains from evasion -- the Borderline probably does regret his or her behavior . . . but he or she delusionally believes it important that the Non never learns this.
If you're a Non, then it's not realistic for you to expect your entreaties ever to be enough to persuade the Borderline to change, no matter how gentle or heartfelt or justified your entreaties are. The entreaties almost always fail because this approach is one that many currently-untreated Borderlines find intolerable.
You are, however, morally justified in your wish that the Borderline would change, if only because it would be more conducive to at least his or her own happiness. :'-(
I recommend this alternative approach. Inform the Borderline that you will always care about him or her, no matter what. To always care about and love the person, however, is not the same as tolerating all of the abusive behavior, all of the devaluation, and all of the inconsiderateness and disrespect. Make it clear to to the currently-untreated, undiagnosed-person-with-BPD-symptoms that, though you will always care about this person, you will tolerate no disrespect or devaluation. Any time the person unjustly devalues or disrespects you, withdraw yourself from the interaction, and do not comply with any irrational requests. If the inconsiderateness is very severe and persistent, you can communicate to this person that these two principles are both true at the same time and do not contradict:
My alternative approach cannot guarantee any change at all in the currently-untreated Borderline's behavior. However, it will spare you -- the Non -- a lot of hours or years of fruitless entreaties to the currently-untreated Borderline to change.
Perhaps you can take some small consolation in the knowledge that the currently-untreated Borderline often did have authentic affective empathy for you, and that this person's exhibitions of indifference to you do not necessarily prove that, deep down inside, this person has zero regrets about mistreating you. :'-(
What I am about to say is a generalization about persons suffering from currently-untreated Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Naturally, these generalizations do not necessarily apply to all people with BPD at all times. This assessment is based on what I have observed in my own experiences, plus what some persons diagnosed with BPD have written to me. Bear in mind that those persons do not necessarily agree with everything written on this blog. Anyhow, I will sometimes refer to persons with currently-untreated BPD as "Borderlines." This should not be taken as a pejorative; the locution is used for the purpose of making my blog post easier to read. Likewise, the loved ones of Borderlines will sometime be called "Non-Borderlines," "Nons" for short. When discussing a Borderline, I will switch between the pronouns "him" and "her."
Their Aloof Pose Does Not Prove That They Never Think About You
Love ones have often been on the receiving end of very inconsiderate treatment from the Borderlines in their lives. And when currently-untreated Borderlines are confronted with this fact, their loved ones are often horrified by the currently-untreated Borderlines' evident refusal to show remorse for this treatment, or to even make any sincere promise to change it. Based on the Borderlines' blase-at-best reaction, many loved ones often conclude that Borderlines are sociopaths who have zero capacity to empathize. I can see why such loved ones would infer as much. However, such a conclusion is misleading. If you have someone in your life who has undiagnosed, untreated BPD -- and refrains from exhibiting any real remorse for mistreatment of you -- chances are that this person does have genuine remorse for this mistreatment . . . but would be loathe to admit it to you.
Even as prestigious a research psychologist as Simon Baron-Cohen (cousin to the famous actor who plays Borat and Bruno) grievously equivocates Borderlines with sociopaths. A news article about Baron-Cohen's latest book summarizes Baron-Cohen's conclusion this way:
...the pathological group. These are people with borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. They are capable of inflicting physical and psychological harm on others and are unmoved by the plight of those they hurt. Baron-Cohen says people with these conditions all have one thing in common: zero empathy.
The news article's author is not putting words into Baron-Cohen's mouth. Direct quotations from Baron-Cohen indicate the accuracy of the prior paragraph's description of Baron-Cohen's view. Baron-Cohen himself says that he equates every "personality disorder" with "a lack of empathy because many of the personality disorders, like the psychopath, or people with borderline personality disorder are just operating on a totally self-centred mode."
Both Simon Baron-Cohen and the newspaper writer fallaciously equate ethics with "social interaction," the implication being that you would have no need for morality if you were stranded on a desert island all by yourself. As you know that I support a humane and considerate Ethical Egoism, you know I reject the "zero-empathy-equals-evil" presumptions of Baron-Cohen and that newspaper writer. But as this blog concerns itself merely with explanations of BPD and Body Dysmorphia, I will not digress into a long discussion about the ethics of rational self-interest. I will merely continue about BPD.
This ABC News piece likewise cites a psychologist as it equates BPD with a sociopathic paucity of empathy:
Two of the potential issues [Casey] Anthony could suffer from are borderline personality disorder and psychopathology, the experts said. The main thing these issues have in common is a total lack of empathy, according to LeslieBeth Wish, a psychologist and licensed social worker in Sarasota, Fla.
Once, a person with a beautifully high level of empathy had seriously told me, "I wonder if I'm a sociopath. When other people want me to cry about the things I do to them, they get no such response. I just go numb; I don't have a ability to feel."
Knowing this person very well, I replied, "I don't think you lack such a capacity; I have seen and felt your warmth and caring. I think what's really going on is that you feel so strongly, that it it causes a strain and hurt more severe than that experienced by others. It's not that you feel less than they, but more. To defend you against too much pain, the emotional parts of you go numb so as to protect you."
Then this person made a really weird blank look (more of this will be described later). The person then said something very quickly, and the tone would have sounded cocky if it weren't full of obvious defensiveness. What was said was, "No, I don't go numb at all. I'm just logical."
At the time, I scoffed at the notion that this person could be a sociopath; this person had -- and has -- a highly empathic nature. I now understand why this was said, and why very sane, normal people would accuse this person of being lacking in empathy. They would make this accusation because they do not fully understand this person's psychiatric condition. The most tragic part is that this person, too, misunderstood this person's own issues with empathy. :'-(
Two Forms of Empathy
First we should clarify that there are two types of empathy -- cognitive empathy and affective empathy. You are engaging in cognitive empathy when, on an intellectual level, you understand how someone else is feeling. By contrast, you experience affective empathy when you observe someone else's emotion and, as a direct consequence of this observation, experience the very same emotion.
If I observe that someone else is sad, but I myself do not feel sad about this, then I am experiencing cognitive empathy but not affective empathy. Conversely, if I see someone is sad, and I consequently feel sad myself, then I am having empathy on both the cognitive and affective levels.
In many cases, a functioning autistic is low on cognitive empathy but is still capable of experiencing affective empathy. That is, if your body language gives off the subtle cues about your feelings that are normally given off, the functioning autistic will comprehend none of it; he will not know what you are feeling. However, if you make it very obvious that you are sad or frightened to an extreme degree, the functioning autistic will probably likewise become sad or frightened as well.
A sociopathic con man pretty much operates in the opposite fashion -- he has high cognitive empathy but low affective empathy. He is able to manipulate and con you precisely because he can carefully read your body language and tone, and therefrom accurately infer what you are feeling. However, when he sees the pain that his actions have caused you, he is genuinely unable to feel bad along with you, or to experience authentic remorse. Insofar as he is remorseful, that remorse is shallow and will be soon forgotten.
Many people with currently-untreated, undiagnosed BPD have issues with empathy that are similar to those of functioning autistics and sociopaths. However, there are important differences.
Why Do Borderlines Appear Unsympathetic to Your Distress?
An astonishing number of currently-untreated, undiagnosed people with BPD symptoms like to pride themselves on their ability to read people; they see themselves as having high cognitive empathy. However, in my experience, the same people-with-BPD-symptoms have actually made some glaring social gaffes, oblivious to their own outlandishness. I know of one case where this person thought that she had impressed everyone in the room when, in actuality, her eccentric behavior made most of the people in the room feel awkward and uncomfortable. Sometimes this person had high cognitive empathy, but there were commensurate occasions on which her cognitive empathy was low.
When it comes to the matter of affective empathy, consider the emotional instability common to Borderlines who are currently not in treatment but ought to return to it. When the currently-untreated Borderline is feeling safe and secure, it is very easy for the Borderline to emotionally bond with you and to feel as you do. However, it may be the case that this Borderline can easily be "triggered" by some stimulus -- such as by some type of mention of sex or reproductive anatomy -- that elicits a panicky anxiety attack from the Borderline. During these panic/anxiety attacks, the Borderline is often caught in a fight-or-flight response. Even though, to you, the Borderline is getting upset about nothing, the Borderline can seriously feel something like, "Aaaaaauuuuuckk!! I'm dying!!!" (This is not hyperbole. The distress is that severe.)
BPD Anxiety
When the Borderline is triggered, the Borderline will interpret the trigger as some kind of life-or-death emergency. In those moments, the currently-untreated Borderline's concern for anyone else's feelings or well-being goes out the window. During moments of panic -- triggered by rather harmless stimuli -- the Borderline will be low on both cognitive- and affective empathy.
Recall that among the main symptoms of BPD are emotional instability, chronic emptiness, a proneness to anger, self-destructiveness, suicidal thoughts, and general anxiety. As emotional pain is something of a norm for Borderlines, too many of them develop the maladaptive practice of suppressing their emotions and trying to become emotionally numb. I recall someone very dear to me who learned to repeatedly become stoic in this way. This person often became upset at the slightest provocation. It was not initially obvious when this person became upset. When this person was triggered and became upset, this person's face suddenly became weirdly blank, with this person's mouth stiffening. It looked like some kind of "poker face," but with some resignation and tiredness, too. Although the person had learned to hide the discomfort by putting on a blank, stoic expression, you could still detect the tension at the temples.
The point is that even when this person had those panic/anxiety attacks, the person developed this blank, stone-faced expression. I suspect it is because the person misapprehends that admitting her own vulnerabilities would be some kind of show of weakness. My educated guess is that some currently-untreated Borderlines misperceive that confronting and accepting this vulnerability would be some sort of relinquishment of power and control. In fact, the opposite is true -- to let the vulnerabilities show would be the manifestation of true confidence and courage and strength. Moreover, it would not be giving up control and power but gaining the only forms of power and control that matter -- the power and control over oneself that comes with taking responsibility for one's own mental well-being.
Yes, this person easily became upset. As a maladaptive -- and ultimately unhelpful -- attempt to manage the anger or hurt, this person had become accustomed to numbing and repressing such emotions so as to not "lose cool" in public. The long-term negative effects of this emotion-suppression technique are explained by a psychologist here and by a recovered Borderline here.
And one big, panic-inducing "trigger" for many currently-untreated Borderlines is any attempt on your part to confront them on how their inconsiderate behavior is hurting you and of how you wish they would see the situation from your vantage point. When you try to very gently discuss this matter with the currently-untreated Borderline, the currently-untreated Borderline might react in one or both of these ways:
1. Become triggered and experience that sense of panic and emergency. In this very moment, the currently-untreated Borderline will only worry about her own feelings -- as if her life is on the verge of ending -- and will have low regard for your decision to express your own feelings. This definitely makes the currently-treated Borderline appear generally non-empathetic.
2. Become triggered and upset, and then immediately cope with the panic by getting all numb. To the degree that the currently-untreated Borderline succeeds in becoming numb, she will honestly be devoid of any interest in your plea that she take your feelings and well-being into account. This, too, makes the currently-untreated Borderline appear generally non-empathetic.
In those moments of confrontation, the currently-untreated Borderline probably does show a deficiency in empathy. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that the currently-untreated Borderline has never felt any authentic affective empathy for you.
A sociopath is someone perpetually incapable of experiencing strong affective empathy. This applies all or at least most of the time. By contrast, a currently-untreated Borderline will very easily feel affective empathy for you when she is relaxed. But this currently-treated Borderline will, in times of stress, experience momentary -- but very brutal and crushing -- lapses in empathy for you. Simon Baron-Cohen is all mixed up. A currently-untreated Borderline's momentary lapses in affective empathy -- and stubborn refusal to be contrite with his or her victims -- should not be conflated with a sociopath's continuous and persistent absence of affective empathy.
A Vicious Cycle Going in . . . A Perfect Circle . . .
If you're a Non, and have tried to maintain a close social bond with a currently-untreated Borderline, then you might have gone through this painful cycle:
1. The currently-untreated Borderline does something to the Non that is horribly inconsiderate . . . maybe even cruel.
2. The Non very gingerly, calmly, and gently tries to explain to the currently-untreated Borderline how the Borderline's behavior has been harmful and/or disrespectful to the Non. The Non compassionately asks the Borderline for a very deliberate changes -- an improvement -- in behavior.
3. This confrontation triggers the Borderline. The currently-untreated Borderline gets that panicky fight-or-flight response -- even if he or she continues to look calm on the outside -- and gains the inaccurate-but-strong emotional sensation that it's an emergency to completely ignore and disregard the Non's tearful entreaties. The Borderline will rebuff the Non's entreaties, as if only the Borderline's feelings are important whereas the Non's feelings are immaterial.
4. The Non interprets the Borderline's rebuff as a general lack of empathy and remorse. This is offensive, horrifying, and disgusting to the Non. He now sees the Borderline as cold-hearted, and this cold-heartedness as immoral. The Non desperately pleads with the Borderline to be more caring (i.e., more moral).
5. This further aggravates the Borderline, thus impelling the Borderline to further numb him- or herself. Whether by conscious intention or by automatized practice, the Borderline refrains from making any remorse visible to the Non. (In truth, when the Borderline is out of the Non's sight, the Borderline will reflect on the matter in secret and feel guilty about it.) The Non then tries harder, further admonishing the Borderline to change.
This cycle pretty much repeats itself -- getting worse and angrier with every repetition -- until the Non finally gives up and cuts the Borderline out of his life. Years later, the Non probably believes that the Borderline still feels no remorse. In truth, when the Borderline looks back on these events -- and refrains from evasion -- the Borderline probably does regret his or her behavior . . . but he or she delusionally believes it important that the Non never learns this.
If you're a Non, then it's not realistic for you to expect your entreaties ever to be enough to persuade the Borderline to change, no matter how gentle or heartfelt or justified your entreaties are. The entreaties almost always fail because this approach is one that many currently-untreated Borderlines find intolerable.
You are, however, morally justified in your wish that the Borderline would change, if only because it would be more conducive to at least his or her own happiness. :'-(
I recommend this alternative approach. Inform the Borderline that you will always care about him or her, no matter what. To always care about and love the person, however, is not the same as tolerating all of the abusive behavior, all of the devaluation, and all of the inconsiderateness and disrespect. Make it clear to to the currently-untreated, undiagnosed-person-with-BPD-symptoms that, though you will always care about this person, you will tolerate no disrespect or devaluation. Any time the person unjustly devalues or disrespects you, withdraw yourself from the interaction, and do not comply with any irrational requests. If the inconsiderateness is very severe and persistent, you can communicate to this person that these two principles are both true at the same time and do not contradict:
1. You care about this person's well-being, and probably always will.
2. You will not interact with this person again until such time that this person is able to provide you creditable evidence that she has resolved to change for the better and is getting the professional psychiatric care that she needs.
My alternative approach cannot guarantee any change at all in the currently-untreated Borderline's behavior. However, it will spare you -- the Non -- a lot of hours or years of fruitless entreaties to the currently-untreated Borderline to change.
Perhaps you can take some small consolation in the knowledge that the currently-untreated Borderline often did have authentic affective empathy for you, and that this person's exhibitions of indifference to you do not necessarily prove that, deep down inside, this person has zero regrets about mistreating you. :'-(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
