BPDRecovery.com: Forums

A while back, Candle introduced us to the concept of anti-process. Formally defined, that means:

In more approachable language, that can be seen as described:


Yay, it looks like the original anti-process website is back up here. (It's an AOL member page so it was down for a period of time.) For something with an approximate reading time of only 35 mins, it's sure a lot to digest, I tell ya that.

I have yet to find a plain-spoken source of suggestions on how to deal with antiprocess when we find ourselves caught in that vicious loop.

Is it just a matter of calling "Anti-process on the field" like when a ref throws a yellow flag during a football game and taking a time-out?

If the subject matter continues to be "undesirable" (as it usually is) is it a subject that should continue to be avoided at all points in the future to also avoid antiprocess?

Surely I can discuss the subject with those who don't find my POV objectionable just as people on the other side of the equation can still discuss the subject with others who don't find their POV undesirable and it's even possible for different people from each side to be able to have discussions about the subject if their threshhold or tolerance for objectionable material is higher or if their perception of the undesirability of the opposing POV is lower than the original folks involved in antiprocess.

When I find myself caught in that sort of vicious loop again, I guess I'm wondering if there's any realistic way to get out of the loop without walking away completely or if I should stick to "no means no, end of discussion" as a parent would to a child throwing a temper tantrum at the candy display in the supermarket check-out aisle?

I have looked at countless sites over the past few months (and especially the last few hours) trying to find some sort of way to effectively address or handle anti-process and I'm coming up cold. Has anyone else found (or is anyone else able to find or boil down information that's already out there in front of my face) that talks not about what Anti-Process is but more how to handle it?

I believe the author of this site - http://stoneforest.org/critical.html - is using English as his or her second language so things may be a bit choppy but it seems as though s/he might be alluding to the fact that a lot of antiprocess could be cut off at the knees if both sides can recognize & accept "this is not an argument but merely a difference of opinion and no one is required to change their opinion."

Or maybe I should keep reading ...

I agree with this... if the argument has been had before, and there was a disagreement, why have it again? I think I would just save my words and refer the person to past threads in an effort to refresh their memory that we disagree.

I also think it's important that everyone keep an open-mind to other perspectives and make an effort to step in other's shoes and actually be there for a moment. I think that it helps so much to make sure there is an open door for anyone to be heard, to feel comfortable about being heard, and to offer suggestions. I think it's important for the growth of everyone involved. And, I see that you started a thread going in that direction....

But what if it's a new argument and it hasn't been had before? There's always a first time for everything and it may be quite a while before recognition of antiprocess dawns on one side, or the other, or both.

I think, by and large, it's the ongoing "sagas" that get hashed and rehashed time after time where things tend to get ugly because it seems as though one side or the other has decided NOT to let the difference of opinion stand, leave well enough alone, allow the other side to exist, accept that there are different opinions, etc.

Are you saying that you think the most appropriate response to a rehashing is "Please see this old thread" with no (or very little) discussion at all? How would you respond to those who say "That approach is too cold, not empathetic, too invalidating"? (And please don't say "I would tell them 'Please see this other old thread!'" LOL)



If I believe I'm hearing you and I believe I've stepped into your shoes and I believe I understand where you're coming from and what your point is, how do I know whether or not I'm right?

I could say "I hear what you're saying" all day long and I could in fact be interpreting the black-and-white words correctly, taking them at face value, taking nothing personally and all the rest. If you've been saying "The moon is made of green cheese" and I say "I hear where you're coming from, you think the moon is made of green chese and from your perspective, it sure can appear to be green cheese. Here is some science, though, that disproves the green cheese theory" how is that contrary to what you've suggested?

I guess what I'm saying is that I think there are some people who see that "science disproves your theory" as the undesirable information so they not only refute and block out the science but also reject any and all attempts made to demonstrate that they have been heard, that they are being listened to, that they're not being invalidated or dismissed outright.

My endeavor is to uncover a way to work around that anti-process but so far it seems the only way to make it around that is to avoid bringing up the undesirable information, to give the other person only the information which they are comfortable hearing. What am I missing?

In another take on the same concept, I say the grass is orange and you say the grass is purple. I can step back and say "hey, she sees it as purple, that's a different opinion from mine, I'm cool with us having different opinions."

What then should I do when you keep hounding me to get me to agree with you that the grass is purple? You bring it up every time we bump into each other. I tell you "You're allowed to see the grass as purple but that won't change my perspective that the grass is orange" and that somehow isn't good enough for you, not enough, not understanding enough, not validating enough, not whatever. The mere fact that I haven't come out and said "Okay, you're right, the grass is purple" seems to spur you on to continue harping and poking and prodding at me to change my opinion.

I'm all for mutal agreement to disagree. I'm all for freedom of opinion.

What I have a hard time with is when one side says "fine by me if you want to think that" and the other side says "I won't let this rest until you think this way too."

Perhaps "I think we disagree on this topic, because of these threads... I have done my best to hear and understand you and your points. But this does not fit my vision of what I want BPDR to be at the current time. I don't think I want it to grow in this way for these reasons..." Perhaps give an explanation of why you don't see that happening, so they can understand where you are coming from? That to me is going forward so that others can gain a deeper understanding of your motives and desires, instead of rehashing the same information and arguments.

And these are just thoughts.... just exploring here.



Well, I don't think anyone is ever "right"... I think they are "right" For them. ex/ Alot of people at one time thought the world was flat. I think there is truth in every perspective. Being able to step completely into another's perspective won't ever happen, but because I might come close to doing that, doesn't mean my own perspective is wrong, nor does it have to change my idea that my perspective is right for me.


I agree with you. It's a difficult situation, and one I think where the other possibly has passion involved related to a past experience or empathy for a certain situation. I think there is truth to be had from both opinions.

Maybe ask why they feel so passionately about their ideas, that they would continue to bring them up over and over again?

I think I can relate to both, and I see my own.

It seems to me that the basis of many arguments comes down to hurt feelings. If someone disagrees with something I am doing, either I have to convince the person that what I am doing is right for me (assuming I believe strongly in my choice of actions) or I have to change what I am doing to be more acceptable to those who disapprove (assuming I want approval from others). It somehow comes down to an argument of "right" versus "wrong" as opposed to a difference in opinion if I am unable to see that what I am doing may be right for me and at the same time it may result in disapproval from other people. The "saving face" defense tends to be one of "I am going to do whatever I want" but then that tends to keep others at a distance because of the antisocial nature of such statements. In addition, it does not make sense for anyone to be a part of a community if the person is not interested in getting and applying feedback from the community.

The underlying assumption with the way BPDR is set up is that people are here to change their maladaptive coping skills. The way the community works through peer support (a form of peer pressure) is that people share those things they want help changing and members of the community offer suggestions based on those things they have found helpful. When members ask for suggestions and they are clear about the type of feedback they are looking for, things work well.

The breakdown occurs when people are here merely to rant and rave or to gain support for maladaptive behaviors. It should be clear to those people that BPDR is the wrong place for them and yet some of them stubbornly dig in their heels and continue to disrupt the community just because they can get away with it. Because those people are not here to work on changing themselves (no matter how many times they post trying to convince people otherwise), they disrupt the community with their "fuck you" attitude. If the community is accepting of those individuals and their refusal to take responsibility and make positive changes in themselves so that they can relate to others in more positive ways, we really do get "fucked" by them! I have seen this happen for years now because people keep giving of themselves without realizing that the person is just screwing with them.



I think it is important to keep saying "if BPDR is not the right place for you, you are free to go somewhere else to meet your needs" over and over again as necessary as long as BPDR is clearly defined as peer support with a recovery focus. Non-conformists have their place in society but usually that is on the fringes and not the center of attention.



It seems to me that would be called "walking on eggshells" and that is something we want to avoid here, eh? You could allow yourself to be bullied by someone with a severe personality disorder, but I don't think that would be in your best interests or in the best interests of the community. At the same time one person may be saying "no fair, Ash" others are glad to see that you are not going to permit that person to bully you into bringing down the integrity of BPDR. Some of us do look up to you to keep BPDR on track no matter how many attempts are made to derail you, even when oiling the squeaky wheel may take too much of your attention.

I hope I am not blending the issues too much in one thread when there are several threads related to the same basic topic open for discussion. Also, I am not referring specifically to this latest example of "anti-process" with regards to various approved therapies as I am to the general pattern of confrontation related to BPDR being too enabling versus not validating enough. In DBT (a form of CBT), the effectiveness of therapy has to do with validating where a person is at in the moment while also insisting that the person work on getting to a better place. The "theme" of DBT is to "do what is effective" and that means that ineffective behaviors need to be modified towards more effective behaviors. Since BPD is such a complex disorder, there is often not a simple answer to recovery.

I hope I have been able to offer something to the discussion and that my thoughts are clear enough that they make sense outside of my own head. I can give myself such a headache that I hope it doesn't spread to anyone else reading my words! LOL

Entertaining other ideas outside of our own is not succumbing to anything but what we allow it to.... if one is afraid of stepping outside of one's own comfort zone then one is afraid that one's own ideas aren't solid, or one has their own agenda in mind.

Looking at the content of the responses since I was last here, it seems as though one thing I said may have been misinterpreted.


You're right (!) that I can never truly see the world and feel things exactly the way you do. It wasn't so much a statement about whether my position on the color of the grass is right or wrong. It was a statement of "how do I know whether I have truly understood where the other person is coming from?" How do I know if my "understanding" of their POV is right or on-target?

I think one of the dangers in this area is that, again, you're right that no one can ever truly step into the shoes of and view the world through the eyes of another person. So if I say "I understand where you're coming from," I could be 0% correct and just giving empty lip service to placate the person. I could be 30% correct but I've got my own stuff mixed in there without realizing it. I could be 80% correct because I've hit the main issues but missed some of the subtle nuances because I can't ever be that person with their past, their feelings, their thoughts, their filters.

If I say "I think I understand where you're coming from, it seems like _______" more often than not, I've seen that devolve into "no, that's not what I meant, let me clarify" -- lather, rinse, repeat -- and the actual issue or topic gets lost in the endless clarifications as the person tries to blur all boundaries and get that other person to step into their shoes and see every tiny detail exactly the way they see things.



I (obviously) think that's unhealthy.

So where and how do we balance that line? How do I convey that "I'm pretty sure I get where you're coming from" in a convincing way that doesn't lead to a complete regression of who meant what?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a lot in this thread already and I want to be able to give due consideration to all aspects. For now, though, that's what has jumped out at me right away.

That and something Denim said which I really, really like:

I like that as a possibilty for incorporation into the "sign on the front door" but I'm also aware that I don't do terribly well at the validating aspect. When I say "I hear ya, I've been there, I know where you're coming from, I understand how upsetting, etc." to me, that's validating. To others though, the "insisting that they work on getting to a better place" seems to be the antiprocess stuff they don't want to hear. They don't want to leave where they are. It's comfortable and known in their current place of misery. Change is scary. Work is hard. Excuse after excuse. And it all boils down to "I'm hearing something I don't like and I'm going to plug my ears and tune you out, yell at you for being mean, saying untrue things, refuse to listen to these things I don't like hearing."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now, I've got some work to get done but I won't stop thinking about this & mulling over the other aspects in here that I haven't yet touched on.

A great way I saw this put once:

We accept you as you are, but we are not content for you to stay that way.

Oh, bravo, Mobilene!

In practice, even if you do understand what the other person is saying, this doesn't make any difference until the other person believes it. In my experience, if they think you don't understand, saying "I understand" or "I hear what you're saying" isn't very likely to help, and can even come across as invalidating.


If they respond with further attempts at clarification, then either you've not understood yet, or they've not understood your rewriting of it.

I'd say it's not about getting every tiny detail. Most of the details aren't important, and it's the big-picture message that needs clarified. I've had conversations of 10-20 posts, where by the end of it, the actual point can be written in 5 lines. When we both know and agree on what that point is, it becomes possible to work things out that seemed impossible before.

I missed a thought out of that post. If somebody is trying to drag in every tiny detail, I focus on making my posts quite short, and reply to the 1-to-3 things that seem the most important. If I missed something that was important, the other person will point it out, and I can consider it as "one of the most important things" the second time it appears. (I've not actually been accused of trying to avoid the issue when doing that, I guess because I try to make sure I get to it the second time.)

That is an excellent way of wording it! I can't take credit for the idea, though, because it is actually a part of DBT. Ash, I think you would find a lot of value in Linehan's DBT books but the "text book" that I found the most insightful is written for therapists and it is a bit expensive. There were concepts in DBT that I did not like, diary cards in particular, and I found it helpful to know what she was thinking when she insisted it be a part of DBT (I was able to convince my therapist that they should not be required because I don't keep track of time well enough to fill the darn things out consistently enough to give helpful data). DBT is also being used to treat other disorders effectively so there are many books out there now that use the basics of DBT and adapt them more specifically to other mental health issues, such as PTSD.

Ahhh, I'm seeing that I misinterpreted... "right" meant "right" in the sense that, how well do I understand you?

I really am confused...because, according to wikipedia:

Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or to in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself.

Yet, isn't the development of empathy now leading me away from health according to the chart? I suppose there's a grey area where I can go there, but still accept our disagreements and differences?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I might point out a disctintion that made sense to me.


According to these definitions, empathy in no way requies agreement (although it is possible just not required), whereas sympathy does. So, according to the chart, empathy would be preferred, IMO. To see where the other party is comming from, but still have one's own views. Interdependence. Each responsible for their own views, sometimes overlapping.

I believe there is a big difference between these two acts. I think in the recovery aspect, empathy would be more beneficial so that the person could continue to progress of their own accord rather than with a group mind. That is not meant to say that I don't think we should never agree with one another, just not meld our emotions so. Make sense?

I think I'm seeing it a bit differently today, as in, "all are welcome", just like all are welcome to a church, but that doesn't mean you can break our rules. That doesn't mean that norms don't exist. It's like a church. "All are welcome", but if you don't accept their ways, then it's not for you. And those ways include what Ash finds to be too disruptive, whether you are using and accepting of the tools or not.

I don't think it has to do with what Ash finds to be too disruptive since it is a community run by a leadership team based on Ash's vision. It is pretty obvious that Ash tolerates a lot of Borderline behaviors that are not well tolerated by more standard norms! I think Ash leaves it up to individuals to decide for themselves if this is where they belong, whether she personally wants them here or not.

This is true. Ash even pulls herself out of any debate/final decision-making process if she has personal 'stuff' triggered, or has been deeply involved in some dispute, etc..

Sorry, I enmeshed these two threads...but thanks for clarifying that, Denim & Candle.