"but I Wasnt Abused"

[hummm_mabbe]

I posted this in another thread, but because I have so often read people saying "but I cant have BPD, I was never abused", i felt this was worth putting up. You do not need to have been abused - abuse will increase the severity of symptoms and even leave you more open to psychoses, but abuse is not necessary to develop BPD. Here is why:

Growing up in an environment perceived as invalidating is one factor commonly discussed as contributing to the development of borderline personality disorder (BPD).

An Invalidating Environment

In this sense, to invalidate means to attack or question the foundation or reality of a person’s feelings. This can be done through denying, ridiculing, ignoring, or judging another’s feelings. Regardless of the means, the effect is clear: the person feelings are “wrong.”

An environment perceived as invalidating generally means that the child grows up feeling that his emotional responses are not correct or considered in the regular course of things. Over time, this can result in confusion and a general distrust of a person’s own emotions.

An invalidating environment is not the same thing as an abusive environment, although abusive relationships are certainly invalidating. Invalidation can be quite subtle and may reflect a general way of interacting.

Validation vs. Praise

Validation is not the same thing as praise; it is more an acknowledgement of the person, whereas praise is just a compliment. To validate someone is to acknowledge the feelings involved, regardless of whether you agree with how the other person is feeling or not.

Praise addresses the action or behavior without addressing the emotion behind it. It can be that, although a child’s behavior is acknowledged and reinforced, the effort or negative feeling is not addressed. This can cause the child to feel that his total experience is not accepted, and even dismissed.

An example:

A young child goes into the classroom by herself on the first day of school, although she is scared. Praising her would be a simple, “Good job!” On the other hand, “You were so brave to go in even though you were scared. It couldn't have been easy. What a good job you did,” validates the troubling feelings, remarks on the effort overcoming those feelings took, and praises the effort.

It is possible to praise while being invalidating at the same time: “Good job. Now don’t you see how silly you were being?” This response invalidates the feelings the child was having by calling them “silly,” despite the praising of the behavior. It is important to note, however, that invalidation -- as it relates to the development of borderline personality disorder -- is not a periodic experience, but a pervasive one.

[yorkiegal73]

do you think we're born with the tendency to develop bpd, and are just more sensitive than other kids? so certain parental behaviours, such as failure to validate us, would cause bpd in some but not others? i know that i was highly sensitive to perceived criticism as a small child.

[hummm_mabbe]

do you think we're born with the tendency to develop bpd, and are just more sensitive than other kids? so certain parental behaviours, such as failure to validate us, would cause bpd in some but not others? i know that i was highly sensitive to perceived criticism as a small child.

It depends who you ask. A pure biological psychiatrist will say that you have a genetic predisposition to be "emotionally labile" and that whatever happens you are doomed to BPD. The research on this is HUGE but never actually pinpoints the organic "seat" of illness and rests on shaky studies on the path of schizophrenia in twins. They just keep producing more and more paper that says less and less, and conclude with "we recommend further research on this". In fact the research is not very compelling, and I have several books with examples of this research. It never gets to the point of proof - only suspicion, but its said with total conviction. This is baseless.

A more psychological person would say that even if a child has a more sensitive temperament, good parenting will always overcome the temperament and produce a happy child. There is a great deal of research eveidence to back this up.

Lastly a biopsychologist or neuropsychologist would tell you that when a baby is born, they do not have a complete brain. Just like they do not have a complete anything, the brain must be further developed through contact with parents. Ive said it many times, but the work f John Bowlbly, who is considered the Father of modern child developmental psychology, observed that certain ways of interacting with a baby made it more likely to have certain emotional problems as it grew. He followed his babies as they grew up into adults and observed the consistent traits in them throughout life. Now, neuroscience has found that the reason for this is that proper interaction between baby and mother leads to the healthy development of the part of the brain responsible for emotional regulation, impulse control and the ability to plan.

Thats is 2 out of 3 on the side of "nurture", and even in the case of biology, findings show that biology can be overcome with love. I keep recommending it, but if you are stuck in a battle with parents or psychiatrists over whether its not their fault and they want to blame biology, then you could do much worse than read Sue Gerhardts "Why Love Matters". Its a great text that sums up all the research I mentioned above.

The biology theory is just one of many - but its what you will hear if you deal regularly with PDocs.

[walker]

thankyou for this topic Ross

it helps

[yorkiegal73]

I was adopted as a baby (10 weeks) and one of my therapists told me that even those first few weeks are critical to developing a strong sense of self. He said that not forming a bond with a parent in the first 3 months of life can cause abandonement issues later in life. That's why a lot of adoptees end up in therapy, along with kids who's mothers had post natal depression.

Obviously in my case, later events with my adopted mother had a significant effect on me, but it may be that the bpd started even before then.

[Nina of the Light]

still a topic that makes me think.

Still not sure how i feel about it. but thanks for posting it. I like it when people get my wheels movin.

Nina

[Lily-Bee]

My psychiatrist and I both believe that in my case I developed BPD due to a combination of a bad childhood(invalidation but also plane emotional abuse and neglect) and a predispostion I must have had to begin with. I believe it varies from case to case but in mine it is both.

Lilly

[SpookyB00]

I have no idea if I have BPD but as a baby who was kept by a mother who should have put her children up for adoption I feel I have so many issues by being KEPT. Being adopted is not necessarily a bad thing. Terrible, I don't doubt. I often wonder if it would have been worse or maybe just different.

[hummm_mabbe]

My psychiatrist and I both believe that in my case I developed BPD due to a combination of a bad childhood(invalidation but also plane emotional abuse and neglect) and a predispostion I must have had to begin with. I believe it varies from case to case but in mine it is both.

Lilly

Has your psychiatrist been able to describe how and what that predisposition is, for example an explanation based on brain regions and why exactly they came to be more sensitive? HAs he pointed you to a particluar gene, or a mechanism via which eg your amygdala or hippocampus came to be reduced in volume?

The nuerological work I quote above represents a parental route to later organic problems at the root of psychological struggles. That is, the psychological inputs in early infancy - before you can even speak or walk - shape the biological brain. If you belive you were born with it, then I would suggest - how much of your babyhood do you remember? How do you know you were 'born sensitive', apart from what you might have been told by your parents, who POSSIBLY may have been reposnisible for casuing your sensitivity? Would they honestly want to look that possibility in the face, or would it be more comfortable for them to belive that all your problems were biological? if you feel guilt about them, it may even be helpful to you to belive its biological also. Thge problem is, there is no firm standpoint on which to place yourself to say "its different for everybody" because the underlying research and theories have not yielded the results they claim.

Does believing that it is part due to biology make you feel better, or perhaps make things easier for others? Belief in what causes BPD is driven just as much by what we want it to be as the actual scientific evidence. For many, having to face the possibility that we were not loved as we thought, that our childhood was not as good as we thought, or simply the fear of challenging a lifelong conditioning that it was always somehow our fault, prevent them from looking outside the cosy biological model. A quick scan of the work by John Bowlby should be enough to loosen a belief in the biological theory, but many dismiss it out of hand because it dares to point the finger at parents. And this means that those suffering long term emotional distress have to open up a can of worms they had hoped to leave undisturbed. It is easier to believe in biology and not have to go there.

What would it mean to you if they never find the supposed biological predispotion? After all, your psychiatrist is talking about something that exists only in theory - it has not been found or proven. Why do you like this explanation, even though decades of research have been fruitless in proving it? I am not saying this to be unpleasant. I am saying it because the science itself does not substantiate the biological view, although it continues to hunt for it with ever greater energy. I think that you believe it because of emotional reasons, because in some way it is less painful than to belive the alternative.

You can find many articles on the web asserting that biology has been shown to be the cause - but if you read the papers that those claims are taken from, the information does not add up to proof. I am saying this because many people end up stuck for their whole lives because they are afraid to look at where the true pain in their lives comes from. Many people go through life and effectively blind themsleves to what really happened to them, and instead wonder why their symtpoms continue to come back. When you suggest that maybe their parents are the cause and they must explore their pasts, they may react with anger at the suggestion. Despite the endless clinical experience that shows this method leads to relief, the fear of daring to connfront even the memory of mum and dad keeps that particluar piece of rug firmly stapled down and all the memories firmly swept under it.

I am not suggesting that you have avoided asking those questions, or even that you had an awful childhood - I am seeking to understand why you belive the biological theory despite it being psychiatry's as-yet unfound holy grail. Being told that "you were born too emotional" is something that a BPD sufferer - by virtue of possible lifelong invalidation, is likely to absorb as further blame. I do not see why we should accept that when we are dealing with unproven theory, packaged up as gospel.

[Lily-Bee]

Interesting questions

Well I did have a very awfull childhood like I said I believe in my case it to be a combo of genes(predisposition) and upgrowing.

I do believe I might have not had developed this had I been cared for properly. Or maybe it would be way less severe and I would function ok which I do not do now.

The reason my psychiatrist and I believe my genes have something to do with it is because many people in my family have mental illnesses so we think its related. On both my mothers and fathers side most of my relatives are seriously mentally ill.

I do not see it as invalidation, I think I was sensitive but thats doesn't mean I deserved the things that happend to me or even that the BPD is somehow my own fault.

Lilly

[hummm_mabbe]

Interesting questions

Well I did have a very awfull childhood like I said I believe in my case it to be a combo of genes(predisposition) and upgrowing.

I do believe I might have not had developed this had I been cared for properly. Or maybe it would be way less severe and I would function ok which I do not do now.

The reason my psychiatrist and I believe my genes have something to do with it is because many people in my family have mental illnesses so we think its related. On both my mothers and fathers side most of my relatives are seriously mentally ill.

I do not see it as invalidation, I think I was sensitive but thats doesn't mean I deserved the things that happend to me or even that the BPD is somehow my own fault.

Lilly

Another question.

If we were to accept that the way family members treat each other is the cause of mental illness, and each generation is unable to relate in the needed way BECAUSE each generation had the same emotional disadvantage from the beginning, can you see how this represnts a NON GENETIC transmission route to future family members?

If your grandad was cold and distant and negected your dad, then that will mean there is a huge hole in your dads emotional background. If its not in his repertoire, how can he hand it on to you? This non genetic path of mental illnes transmission in families is gaining wide acceptance, especially as psychiatry has failed to prove its prized genetic linkage.

This again is the fundamental flaw in the infamous identical twin studies on schizophrenia, which are the bedrock on which the whole bilogical theory of mental illness is based. If you try to trace the bio theory back to its first principles, these flawed studies of identical twins are what you will eventually come back to. Even the very recent Handbook of Personology and Psychopathology cited them, despite their being extrenely flawed in terms of their methodology.

I am not a lone voice in this - increasing numbers of psychologists and psychiatrists are beginning to realise that the biological model is flawed. A number of books are being written about it. Two titles that spring to mind are "Madness Explained" and Models of Madness by Bentall, both extensively researched books . They deal with schizophrenia in the main, but it is on the schizophrenia research that claims of biologically influenced BPD are made.

[Lily-Bee]

I can see your point and I do not disagree. You might be right, I do not know.

I think in future generations and with future science we might get the answers............and that would be nice if alone because of the stigma that might be less then with the right answers.

Lilly

[hummm_mabbe]

I can see your point and I do not disagree. You might be right, I do not know.

I think in future generations and with future science we might get the answers............and that would be nice if alone because of the stigma that might be less then with the right answers.

Lilly

Correct. Books like Sue Gerhardts "why love matters" are written with future genrations in mind - written to hopefully prevent the same (perhaps unintended) errors being made and so contiuing the line.

This is great for future genrations, but that is why in the present I think its important that the dogma of biologically induced mental illness is rightly challenged. Until it is, the option to do nothing "because we cant change it anyway" remains an alltogether too appealing option for those who wish to keep their own unexplored trauamas, or even guilty consciences, locked away. It gives people the excuse to sweep the problems under the rug only to have them surface in subsequent genrations.

I do not count members of this site in those numbers because, by working to change ourselves, we help the future generations anyway. Not everyone is so forward thinking however.

[hummm_mabbe]

I was adopted as a baby (10 weeks) and one of my therapists told me that even those first few weeks are critical to developing a strong sense of self. He said that not forming a bond with a parent in the first 3 months of life can cause abandonement issues later in life. That's why a lot of adoptees end up in therapy, along with kids who's mothers had post natal depression.

Obviously in my case, later events with my adopted mother had a significant effect on me, but it may be that the bpd started even before then.

Yes - this is how I am inclined to think nowadays too. The brain of the little wee babster is an emotional sponge and highly reactive even from birth. Babies that do not trust their mother will soothe them can actually be observed to turn away when their mother enters the room. Some infants who are not sure if their mother will soothe them or make them worse seem to 'stall', and will make odd noises instead, not knowing whether to cry or not. Some baies will even stop crying altogether if they learn that, when they cry, no one comes. This can be observed in babies a few weeks old.

Attachment theory takes these attitudes and shows how they transfer onto the child,m and then the adult. You may like to google John Bowlby and his work and look at "the attchment styles" and perhaps even see if you can identify your own.

[hummm_mabbe]

still a topic that makes me think.

Still not sure how i feel about it. but thanks for posting it. I like it when people get my wheels movin.

Nina

whee I turned the wheels of a sexy girl in a box

Is that girl like really small and shoved inside a chocolate box, or in fact really enormous and stuck in the lobby of a big museum?

Umm no I dunno what im on about either

[hummm_mabbe]

I have no idea if I have BPD but as a baby who was kept by a mother who should have put her children up for adoption I feel I have so many issues by being KEPT. Being adopted is not necessarily a bad thing. Terrible, I don't doubt. I often wonder if it would have been worse or maybe just different.

Those are extremely hard and upsetting questions to have to ask yourself, and must hurt each and every day. Are you being given the opposrtinuty to work this through in psychotherapy at all? It may help you to find a resoluation about why what happened happened, and help you to remove any damaging self blame that you may still have. More importantly it will help you to find ways to plug the remaining emotional holes and untended emotional needs that you have, or may not even realise you have. If its the latter, you may well feel a strong sense of inexplicable emptiness but seemingly have no way to fill it. Therapy can show you how.

[hummm_mabbe]

thankyou for this topic Ross

it helps

Wheeeeee

**hug**

[hummm_mabbe]

Just wanted to say to Lilly -

My replies to you I had hoped would be challenging, though I hope that you do not feel they shaded into confrontational. As I read them back I saw the potential for them to be taken badly. My apologies if they did -_-

[walker]

trying to ask you something, but cant do it

[icu_baby]

Very interesting philosophical discussion as to the cause of BPD.

Ross Its funny, I just came across an article the other day "emotion-regulating Circuit Weakened in Borderline Personality Disorder"

The link is:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2008/...-disorder.shtml

It shows brain imaging in "healthy" and borderline people. I think that science and mental illness has a long way to go and that technology will only keep developing. Even though there is no biological proof now it doesn't mean that in the future they will not find the gene for it or something.

I don't know, tell me what you think.

[Lily-Bee]

Hi Ross

Dont worry your intentions where clear to me, it was indeed challeging and thoughtprovoking and thats all I perceived it to be so do not worry.

As for what you say about future generations, I believe that when we heal ourselves we heal generations to come. I know I will not pass this crap on to my children.

Lilly

[Angel123]

one of my therapists told me that even those first few weeks are critical to developing a strong sense of self. He said that not forming a bond with a parent in the first 3 months of life can cause abandonement issues later in life. That's why a lot of adoptees end up in therapy, along with kids who's mothers had post natal depression.

Thats quite interesting you say that as when my daughter was born i had really bad postnatal depression. My daughter is now 12 and for years she has been very difficult and is very emotional and so much like me..........

I am trying to sort out counselling for her.

I have always felt that i have messed up her life.

[walker]

I have always felt that i have messed up her life.

ooooooooo know that feeling,

but you didnt cause your postnatal depression, so its not your fault

but i know why you feel that way

xxxx

[wordsmithy]

Some baies will even stop crying altogether if they learn that, when they cry, no one comes. This can be observed in babies a few weeks old.

Attachment theory takes these attitudes and shows how they transfer onto the child,m and then the adult. You may like to google John Bowlby and his work and look at "the attchment styles" and perhaps even see if you can identify your own.

My parents said i never cried much as a baby, i was good baby... i didnt suck a dummy, i didnt need soothing. maybe it looked like a sign that i was going to do well... look at me now...

i tried identifying my attachment style but there is no way i'm going ask my parents about what i was like as a baby, there some things i dont want to know.

one of my therapists told me that even those first few weeks are critical to developing a strong sense of self. He said that not forming a bond with a parent in the first 3 months of life can cause abandonement issues later in life. That's why a lot of adoptees end up in therapy, along with kids who's mothers had post natal depression.

my mother had post-natal depression when i was born but not with my other brother and sister,

but i never felt like that was good enough reason to say that would cause abandonment issues, i cant find any information to say it is.

maybe i should have stuck to psychology class... lol.

i swear my mother has always felt guilty for being depressed to have me.

this is a really good topic to bring up.

my mother had post-natal depression when i was born but not with my other brother and sister,

but i never felt like that was good enough reason to say that would cause abandonment issues, i cant find any information to say it is.

maybe i should have stuck to psychology class... lol.

i swear my mother has always felt guilty for being depressed to have me.

this is a really good topic to bring up. and something important.

[hummm_mabbe]

Even though there is no biological proof now it doesn't mean that in the future they will not find the gene for it or something.

Yes thats what the psychatrists keep saying too. In, I think it was 2004, over 300 papers were published on the genetic or biological cause of mental illness. 300 papers that all ended up with "more research is needed on this". The search has been going on since early 1900 when Emil Kraepelin put forward his Biological basis of mental illness. Over 100 years of looking, and 300 papers in one year. They are not finding it. At what point do you say "you know, perhaps the evidence suggests we are looking for something that doesnt exist". We have mapped the human genome. We havent found the 'mental illness' one. Is there cheese on the moon? How many rockets would we need to send, and how many thousands of square miles of moon rock would we have to excavate, without finding cheese, before we say "you know, maybe theres no cheese here"?

Other genetic studies have been done that claim to link INFIDELITY to a particular 'allele' on a gene group. But when the scientists were asked "so, do people that have this allele ALL become unfaithful, they said 'no'. When they asked "do all unfaithful people have this allele", they said 'no'. All they had found was that SOME of the unfaithful people had this allele.

The search for the biological cause of mental illness has not even found this much, but it keeps saying "well, maybe its just round the corner".

Something thats worth considering. If Psychiatry does not find this biological cause, then psychiatrists have no reason to exist. It is the basis of their practice, their industry, their jobs. How likely do you think they are to look objectively at the mountains of science that have failed to find the evidence for the theory that their entire existence rests on?

As for the brain imaging - ask a psychiatrist "what came first - the observable change in brain function, or the BPD?". This chicken or egg question has not been answered, and there is just as much evidence that shows that emotional influences change the activity of the brain, and can be observed in MRI. It is what they call in science an "a priori truth". Psychiatry assumes "it is biological". They see that the brain looks different, and they say "Mental illness is biological, and as the brain is biological, and because the brain looks different, , then this proves that the cause of mental illness is biological". It is known as circular reasoning, and much like the conformation bias issue that sundries was talking about in another thread, "a priori" errors are similarly looked on with contempt within science. It just seems that psychiatry does not have the same kind of desire for objective research that other fields of science have.

Its important to understand how science is actually carried out and what "findings" actually mean. When a news report says "scientists have discovered a link between gorgonzola and believing in UFOS'", what they mean is that as a result of how they set up their test, how they analysed their data, and whether their logical reasoning was sound, they came up with this conclusion. But if you found out that they went to a UFO convention, and then shouted around until they found 10 people who all said they liked gorgonzola, and ignored all the ones who said they hated it, then that wouldnt be a very fair or scientific test. But yet this is a very good way of describing how a lot of psychiatric research is carried out. We tend to think that just because a "scientist" said it that it must be true - but this is total nonsense. If it was 'bad science' then they were a 'bad scientist'. Just because you have a white coat doesnt measn that suddenly you are immune to blocking out evidence that runs to the contrary of what you already believe. This is the core of biological psychiatry.