BPDRecovery.com: Forums

Trust is a big issue for me. I've done another one of my famous pendulum swings over the past year or so , from completely lacking in trust to being too trusting. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but once they cross me, I have trouble re-establishing trust.

I agree that ones perception of another (negative or positive) can make all the difference in ones interactions.

I've figured out the criteria that cause me to continue to not trust another after a misunderstanding has occured:

1. When another will quite gladly point out what I did wrong, but fail to see their own error;

2. When another cannot put themselves into my shoes. They are so busy defending their actions and completely failing to see how I might be feeling;

3. When an apology is made and I get it get shoved back in my face;

4. When the other person "plays victim" and turns it all around to make me look like the bad guy.

5. When there is a complete lack of effort to find the grey, to agree to disagree, to reach a resolution that leaves both parties feeling ok.

6. I guess it's the whole repair/rupture process. I respect those who will work through an issue until the end, seeing both sides and taking responsibility for their stuff.

7. When the other person does the "I'm bowing out now" failing to take any advice, suggestions, opinions on board (even when it comes from others they trust and respect.)

This is across the board stuff. This is with anybody. I value my friendships and relationships where honest communication and a willingness to meet each other halfway occurs, where misunderstanding and miscommunications are dealt with without blaming, hostility and attacking, without grudges, personal vendettas and passive-aggressive nonsense. Then I will trust a person.

Im not sure if this is something I can change. I'm not even sure that I want to change it, but anyway I've put my thoughts out there and look forward to seeing what you (candle) or anybody else have to say on the mattter.

Hi Amanda:

My sleeping stuff is taking ahold, but I thought I'd just start in with our discussion.

I'm not sure I see what it is that you believe you ought to change. What you said in your post sounds reasonable to me.

Maybe the focus might be more on what to do if people breach one of the tenets that you've listed as being integral to you in feeling trust in another.

I'll 'read' you more on this tomorrow, hopefully. )

Distrust is intended to protect us so it is not a bad thing. People who are not trustworthy should not be trusted and we should take precautions to protect ourselves from those people. When others assume their rights and feelings are more valid than yours, they are not giving you the respect that earns trust and it is out of necessity that you create enough distance to keep yourself safe.

Ok, well it's good to hear that I'm not being unreasonable on my standards for trusting another. I guess I have no issue here except to enforce boundaries and keep a safe distance from those who I consider untrustworthy.

Amanda,

I want to talk about this one particular item. I want you to know that I'm not using this as an opportunity to attack you (or anyone else) or sneak in snide comments or cast veiled aspersions or anything else. This is something I really want to look at with/for myself. You raised a great topic and I'd like to talk about it with you (and anyone else interested) but I also need it to be taken for face-value -- no hidden agenda, no attempt at parallel discussion, no snotty inferences, nothing like that.

If this is not something you can trust me on, I'll understand but I would still like to be able to engage in discussion about this with anyone else who may be interested. If you would prefer me to take this out of here, I will do so (as long as it's clear that I'm not attempting to do a parallel discussion.)


This is something that resonates with me. I'm not sure which side I see myself on: wearing the shoes or defending. I'm sure I've been both at times.

I guess what jumped out at me was: if they're so busy defending, does that mean I'm attacking, thus necessitating defense?

I know I've felt attacked - both actions, the reasons behind my actions, the words I've said, the intent I've gone into situations with - all of it has been under attack. I want to put myself in the generic "your shoes" but it's hard for me to move from my spot to yours when I'm being assaulted and pinned down under ceaseless fire.

Likewise I'm sure I've been on the other side: saying "stop defending, just try to see my side, see what I'm seeing, understand why I said that, listen to what I'm saying, please hear me!"

So if I'm saying "stop defending" is that being seen as attacking, necessitating defense?

If I'm saying "please see my side" does that mean you think you already have and now you're pissed that I'm not seeing your side because I'm not seeing that you've tried to see my side yet?

There was an article in Cosmo (yeah, I know, it's not The New Yorker) about approaching people like animals.

Approach at the right time: Even though I may really want to pounce when I see a 'perfect opportunity' cuz they're just laying there, unaware, and I can catch 'em by surprise so I think I might have the perfect captive audience, well, I've been mauled a few times with that approach.

Cool head: we're all horses at one point or another. I know sometimes I come stomping into the barn, yelling and shaking my fist and that's not good. "Speak softly and carry a sharp stick" (Speak softly but deliberately and impeccably.)

Indulge in playfulness: let them burn off their hyperness before expecting them to settle down & focus

So I guess that's the next double-edged sword I find myself coming to. If now's not the right time to expect them to put themselves in my shoes (because they're too busy defending themselves) isn't it "okay" that they walk away? I mean, they may make a habit of that and never really be ready to do anything other than defend themselves but is that really something for me to deal with? (Isn't that their stuff?)

If I haven't let them calm down enough (let them burn off their energy, anger instead of play), can I really expect them to calm down to hear what I'm saying, understand where I'm coming from?

And have I stepped slowly enough to allow myself to calm down, compose my thoughts carefully & deliberately so I don't spook them - causing them to feel attacked, maul me in return, tune out to anything I might say?

I would have to say that if I can ask myself all these things -- did I do my best, have I done everything I reasonably expect of them AND of me -- and it's a continuous loop of them never being ready to settle down, always ready to maul, always ready to bolt, then yeah - I would have trouble believing them or even listening when they speak to me. (To me, trust & respect are intertwined. If I don't trust that you'll do what you say, I don't respect you & don't feel obligated to listen to what I believe will be lies, or at least grandiose claims to eek out of a situation)

The problem, for me anyway, is that I think sometimes I may not always be asking myself all those things, that I may not always be doing my best to facilitate communication, that I may get too entrenched in the "why can't you" instead of the "am I really" mode.

Just on my way to work. Won't be back until late this evening. Ash will give your post some thought.

Ash - I'm having a difficult time getting my head around what the point of your post is? I've just completed a 12 hour shift at work!

What I think I'm seeing is you are holding a mirror up to me and are saying "read back post to self." Is there perhaps a double-standard happening on my part?

In otherwords a parallel discussion - does Amanda walk away from conflict unresolved and fail to sort it through to a resolution? And therefore she too should be seen as untrustworthy?

I have worn that hat, as you well know! Sometimes it can take me forever and a day to work through an issue and sometimes I never seem to get there. Now in that case, I would most probably expect that the other party wouldn't trust me. I can understand why they'd keep me at arms length and I'd feel perplexed if they continued to engage me in discussion. If in your mind, I'm a lost cause, and I'm not trustworthy, then why would you even talk to me in the first place? So, I'm not seeing any double standards going on there.

I think a good example of Amanda stepping into anothers shoes was in the CC with Sari. I felt accused of something I didn't do, but, I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she worded things badly and it wasn't her intention to accuse me. However, I have prior experience and information that indicates to me she is trustworthy.

I think a big difference between me and those I consider untrustworthy is an obvious display of willingness on my part to work on myself, to self-examine, to hold a mirror up to myself, alongside a ton of growth in the past 4 years.

I dunno I've probably completely missed the point of your post. I'm tired and maybe slightly on the defensive, but that's fine too. I'm working another 12 hour day tomorrow so I probably won't get back to this until Monday (Sunday in the US.)

Still trying to get my head around the post so will look at the questions.



No, it doesn't necessarily mean you ARE attacking. You may well be (only you would know for sure), but it is more likely that it is the others perception that says "Ash is attacking me." Now if you were somebody I trusted, I'd take you at your word - if you said "I'm not attacking you" then I would probably believe you, but If I didn't trust you, then I would have to question your motives.



Again it may or may not. Some might see "stop defending" as an attack on them. Others might take it on board & calm down enough to see the situation more clearly. It depends on the person and their willingness to resolve the situation. Some are clearly not interested in resolution and will maintain their feelings of being attacked, by choice! (Guilty of having done this myself, so can understand it )



Of course it's ok to walk away. In fact, walking away in the heat of something is generally the way I chose to operate. Occassionally though, I will react.

I've actually found myself in situs several times now when I've said I needed to leave a situation to calm & collect myself and have been told how rude I was to walk away. (In the absence of that calming, re-centering and collection of my thoughts, I don't do very well. I react instead of responding.) This is why I see my walking away as a good thing for me and so I guess I could see it as a good thing for others, but when there are double-standards - ie one rule for me, and another for them - ie: they can walk, but I'm not allowed to because it's rude, that's a whole different ball game. I will challenge that person to stay! I will hold them up to the very standards they apply to me.



This relates to what I just discussed above - If I am not given the courtesy of a breathing space to calm and collect myself, I am very likely going to react. And so it would make sense that If I do not allow another the time to calm themselves, then they are probably going to react as well!

Ok, I see a point here - give people space to calm down and respond. Asking them to engage me when they are fired up is not going to bring condusive discussion. (But I'm still bugged by the double-standards that some have and I admit that I will be combative with that. Something for me to look at.)

Am I getting any closer to the point?

No Amanda, I wasn't posting for the purpose of mirroring anything back to you or having a parallel discussion in here. I was posting because I was trying to understand something for myself.

I was trying to understand the "you put yourself in my shoes" piece. By what point (in most situations) 'should' that piece come about. How would it be displayed. If I have expectation that they would, doesn't that mean I should have the same expectation for myself. How would I know - really know - whether they had or hadn't put themselves in my shoes. What would it look like, sound, feel.

It seems to me (just me, not you, not a parallel discussion) that the point of "in the other's shoes" is to facilitate empathy which is primarily used for understanding, compassion and communication. Because of how I see those connections, I flashed on the timing & approach of communications. I also see "being sensitive to the needs of the person" as a way of me putting myself in their shoes. If they're not ready to settle down & focus yet, if I can put myself in their shoes and see that they're skittish like a colt, afraid of most things, that will help me to communicate more effectively with them.

If I start things off on a better foot, if I am the one to first put myself in their shoes, are they more willing / likely to do the same for me?

Anyway, the double standard you brought up is a good point. How does one deal with that? I guess I've found that the people who cry out the most for justice and fair-play are the ones who are the mavens of double standards. A family member of mine is notorious for this.

I know the Golden Rule 'should' apply. That I should treat others the way I would want to be treated (be kind, civil, polite in the face of obnoxiousness) but I have a really difficult time doing that when all I really, really want to do is give them a dose of their own medicine.

I think that's what Ruiz was talking about in that signature of mine -- using the power of our words in the direction of truth and love. The truth might be that I find the person completely repugnant and mirroring their behaviour back to them might be truthful as well but it doesn't seem to be in the direction of love. (At least not to me.) It seems that my mirroring their behaviour back to them is going to simply perpetuate the cycle of nastiness. If she's nasty to me and I'm nasty back, now she has "a reason" to be nasty to me moving forward.

I guess that's the whole "taking the high road" thing, eh? *grumble*

So if I'm mirroring and nasty back to them, who's to say that they're recognizing I'm mirroring. Maybe they don't see themselves as being nasty. Maybe their perspective is that they were perfectly reasonable & civil and now here I am being a queen bitch in return. When I put myself in their shoes, they see themselves as fine and me as a mean person who's attacking them.

If I put myself in their shoes and see that their nastiness is so deeply ingrained in who they are that they actually believe there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, wouldn't my being mean in return just be seen as unprovoked meanness by them?

That's where my next dilemma comes up. If I don't understand it, I get frustrated which leads me to stepping back / away. If someone is so twisted up that they don't see how the world sees them, how do I deal with that? Because I really shouldn't be a mirror, I should be myself, how do I communicate effectively with that person?

Argh, I think I'm talking myself in circles and over-thinking things.

What stood out to me in what Candle wrote that Amanda quoted is this:


It reminded me of a time when I attempted humor with someone, and he took it as malice. And I do think it came down to a lack of trust. He at that point couldn't trust that I meant what I said in a friendly accepting way, not as a put-down. He didn't see it that way, and didn't have the trust in me to realize I wouldn't say something hurtful.

In retrospect, I do think I should have been more cautious. Humor can bridge divides, yes. But only when understood as humor. And especially in writing (which this was) sometimes it can be unclear how something is meant. I attempted humor to bridge a divide, and instead made the divide wider. (Thankfully, in the long run, we have made peace.)

Just before I went to bed last night it came to me that perhaps people didn't know what I mean by "put themselves into my shoes." I'm not meaning you should understand my thoughts & behaviours. I'm saying put yourself into my shoes and see how I feel. That's is what I think you've said this morning Ash - It's about empathy. And you're right If I can't empathise with another, then how can I expect it back? (I chose who to empathise with is more precise. It's not that I lack the ability.)

I'm not sure if you set out to make me look bad here or not, but I feel like I leave with a great big spoonful of "Amanda is as bad as the people she talks about" and right now that leaves me feeling raw. But, I will go away and see what truth, if any lies in that - my perception of this conversation.

I'm not sure I can help you with whatever your problem is Ash. Maybe somebody else can see what it is?

I have this same problem and I don't seem to communicate as effectively as I would like to in this sort of situation. I think that when dealing with people who are extremely self-centered, it is hard to get them to see how others see them because the way they see themselves is so far from reality that anything that contradicts their own view of themselves will be seen as a personal attack. These people expect everyone else to be considerate of their feelings while they completely disregard the fact that others have feelings as well.

I had a discussion with someone about the concept of "taking the high road" and how that may be justified and yet the other person may also see themselves on the high road and try to push everyone else out of their path. As long as that person sees your approach as "mean" they will feel justified in being "nasty" even though you were not actually being mean to them but merely being honest.

Ok, I've come back to this. Can I say first of all, I mis-read stuff that was written here because self-centred me who started this thread thought it was a discussion about me and my issue with trust/not trusting, so I completely over-looked the fact that Ash was bringing up something that she wanted to deal with for herself. As a result, I felt she was picking apart my thoughts as opposed to analysing her own. I see it now. Ash has an issue with number 2 that I stated; and she was not interrogating me to explain what I meant by it. She was trying to understand her own meaning of it?

I'm also aware that I took this following comment personally.

So, I'm hearing (I think) that allowing them to just be themselves and empathising with them too much feels like "support without a recovery focus is simply enabling." To mirror back to them doesn't work either. Often they have such a distorted view of themselves that they cannot even realistically see themselves, so reflecting back to them, they can't even see it is them (and they seem unable or unwilling to go away and self-examine.) Yup, I get that. So what is the answer?

Personally, I think sending them onto trained mental health professionals who have the skills to handle them is the best solution. I think sometimes it is good to admit that there are those who we just cannot get through to and cannot help, because they do not want to be helped. Sad but, a reality of life. I know because I've seen my mother in this mode for many years, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do until she admits she has a problem.

Calista - I think I'm pretty fair, but I'm aware that I sometimes I identify and recognise so strongly a behaviour pattern in others, similar to that which my mother displayed and as I spent years trusting her, only to be torn down to shreds, I just won't allow it to happen these days. So, I do know what you mean about "my filters" colouring my view of people. However, that said; this filter only applies, when I've seen repeatedly the same untrustworthy behaviour in a person ( I don't filter everybody through the same lens), so is it so wrong of me to want to protect myself? Is it wrong that I choose not to trust and to not engage with some people? Surely this is something that I have a right to? There will always be people in this world that we won't get along with and won't trust and that it is my right to keep a distance from them.

I basically started this post to see if there was anything wrong with my criteria for trusting/not trusting another. Maybe criteria 2 is a sticking point, because as Ash has pointed out "what does it really mean?"

To me it means, the other person has a complete disregard for how I'm feeling because they are so busy fighting off the suggestion that they may have hurt me, unintentionally or not. What I see is a person struggling to come to terms with who they are and to accept that they are not oh, so perfect and uncapable of hurting another.

I don't know that I have more to add to this except that maybe I have come to rely more on the natural cues (the feelings) that I experience from moment to moment as my guide to what feels right and wrong for me, and use it as basis for my behaviour from moment to moment - I haven't perfected this yet (probably never will) but I pretty much trust it for the most part. When my body says "don't trust" it generally is reliable and is telling me so for good reason.

I thought about this. I realize that I base how I trust people on my "feelings" towards them. I sort of get gut feelings about people. Sometimes I don't know a person well but I have a feeling about them that they are untrustworthy. I am not saying I have ESP or special powers - it's just a feeling I get. More often than not I am correct.

But I also don't know now if some of my perceptions can be wrong. I have had friends that I've trusted, and they've turned on me. So someone said to me "well, you chose the wrong friends." But how do you know that in the beginning? I mean, if you have a relationship with someone, and it's going along really well, and all of a sudden they do something against you, how are you to know? So where is the trust there? I can't go back and trust that person again. They broke my trust in them.

I also find myself often thinking about people "I'd trust them with my life." Yet I really have nothing to base that thought (or feeling) on. Can I REALLY trust them with my life? What have they done to prove to me that I can trust them with my life? I'm not talking about my H here or anything like that - I'm talking about people I know for a few years. Again, it's a gut feeling. I wonder if I confuse "trust" with wanting to be taken care of. I have a deep need to be taken care of, and in that sense, I WANT to trust these people, because I need them to take care of me.

Also, on the other hand, I'm still working at trusting my T. He has proven time and again that I can trust him. But sometimes the paranoia creeps in, and I wonder if he really cares about me or wants me as a patient. Of course his actions and words prove that he does, but I constantly test him. Where is the trust there?

So I go from one extreme to the other. I don't know if this is typical BPD behavior or not. I know it's the way I seem to operate.

One of the thoughts that first came to mind as I read Ash' initial post here is that it can be maddening how we naturally go on the defensive even when we know we should not and know how to avoid it and know healthy alternatives.

This has happened so many times in my life and continues today.. mostly here, but in real as well now and then.

Both parties to a discussion can have weeks of smooth interactions and then for some unknown reason, one will have a defensive reaction to a statement or look from the other. That's all it takes. Get a reaction in kind and we are headed into a rathole at warp speed. Even when we learn that the reasons we get defensive are not often valid. That the other does not mean anything threatening by it, we'll still automatically go there.

Ash and I had one of these kinds of exchanges recently. An outside observer might look at both our thought patterns and our words and say.. well.. a defensive reaction might well have been justified there... or they might say.. how silly. You just blew up before knowing what the other meant. And within seconds, the damage is done and it takes amazing effort to try to undo it.

It's a really odd kind of dynamic. I'm lost to find conclusive explanations and 100% solutions. Guess I'll just have to work for 99% and be glad when I get that from others.

For my part in that, I'm really sorry, Ash.

Bill

IBF, I know about those defensive reactions. It can happen when you say something and the other person looks at you and you think "why are they looking at me like that?" Then a small battle can ensue, when the look actually meant nothing. It's not healthy to read meanings into people's words and body language that may not actually be there. I do it with my H and I guess it's assuming when there's really nothing to assume. I see it happen a lot here on the board. People react so quickly to defend themselves, when in fact a hidden meaning just did not exist. Maybe we could all start by trying to have more trust in each other and not assume that things said may have a hidden meaning.