Twisted Love: Jodi Arias and Borderline Personality Disorder

There may be some misconceptions about Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) resulting from the Jodi Arias trial. Whether she has it or not, understanding what BPD is and is not, needs to be clarified. A complex disorder that afflicts anywhere from 2-6% of the U.S. population, BPD is a serious condition that the sufferer most often doesn’t even know they have. Everyone needs to better understand this disorder so that those who have it can seek needed help, and those around them can learn how to deal with them differently. It’s a world of opposites that can be understood and managed.

In Randi Kreger’s The ABC’s of BPD: The Basics of Borderline Personality Disorder for Beginners, author of best-seller Stop Walking on Eggshells, we get a simple and practical explanation about BPD. This is a great place to start learning about BPD. The authors (Randi Kreger and Erik Gunn, co-author) interviewed more than two dozen mental health professionals, people diagnosed with BPD and those who have a family member with it.

In Part 1, the authors say, “People with borderline personality disorder are unstable. They lavish affection on loved ones one moment and then lash out at them the next. They’re intense, impulsive, and reckless.” And later, “People with BPD are hard-wired to feel love, hate, and everything in between intensely, in most situations and with most people–especially the people who love them. And they’ve been that way for many years.”

This book includes excellent resources. Chapters include info about:
What is BPD?
Familiar Relationship Patterns
Causes of BPD
How BPD behavior affects non-bp’s
Treatment of BPD, (finding therapists)
BPD Behavior can be abusive
Rages: Everyone Gets Angry, but acting out Borderline rages are unique and frightening because the BP is usually irrational and totally out of control.

Read more about The ABC’s of BPD, Learn more about Borderline Personality Disorder at UnhookedBooks.com.

About Unhooked Books

Unhooked Books is more than an online bookstore. I opened Unhooked Books after seeing a need for one place for people to find the best and most current information available on personality disorders and borderline personality disorder in particular, living healthy, eating healthy, and managing your life. After 15 years in divorce and child support law in a county prosecutor’s office and the Arizona Supreme Court, I co-founded High Conflict Institute which helps people in high-conflict disputes of any kind. This bookstore stemmed from the needs of the people who contacted us out of desperation. Our books are written by people who are experts in their fields. I’ve personally met and worked with most of them, and those who I haven’t met, come highly recommended by those whom I have met. Enjoy perusing our bookstore and contact us with questions or comments.

Megan Hunter is also founder and CEO of Life Unhooked, a speaking, training and consulting company that provides a fresh perspective and approach to help companies and individuals identify and overcome the damaging behaviors of high conflict personalities. Most importantly we help you ‘unhook’ from these peoples’ behaviors so that you can make the right, next decisions – cleanly and clearly.

Thanks for stopping by!
Megan Hunter Unhooked Books megan@unhookedbooks.com

Guest Blog by Bill Eddy: Guns and Isolated Young Men (Pt. 3)

In my first blog on this subject I mentioned three issues to consider when addressing a social problem – in this case mass shootings. The first issue was to avoid “all-or-nothing thinking” in searching for solutions. The second, discussed in my blog, was to focus on problem solving, not defensive reacting. In this third blog of three, I look at the issue of:

C) Looking at the experience or research of others.

Part of the debate about guns is the idea that guns protect people. “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” says the NRA (National Rifle Association). Is this true? If there’s gun control reducing the presence of guns, will we all become more vulnerable to the fewer people who have them. While I agree with gun advocates that it’s a bad idea to post signs that say “gun free zone” – because it only emboldens those who may be considering using a gun against defenseless people – I don’t agree that actually having fewer guns circulating in society will make us less safe.

So if we look at the research, let’s look at what happened in Australia a few years ago.

In Australia, in 1996, they passed a very strong mandatory gun buy-back law after a mass shooting, which significantly reduced the general availability of guns. As reported in the Daily Beast on January 17, 2013:

there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/17/australia-s-example-for-controlling-guns.html)

Of particular interest to me is the reduction in suicides. Remember, I believe that young men ages 15-25 are a high risk factor for these types of mass shooting, especially if they have a mental health problem, such as depression, schizophrenia and/or a personality disorder. Why is this such an important factor?

In the past 60 years, the suicide rate has quadrupled for males 15 to 24 years old, and has doubled for females of the same age (CDC, 2002).

In 2005, suicide ranked as the third leading cause of death for young people (ages 15-19 and 15-24); only accidents and homicides occurred more frequently.

Firearms remain the most commonly used suicide method among youth, accounting for 49% of all completed suicides.

Research has shown that the access to and the availability of firearms is a significant factor in observed increases in rates of youth suicide. Guns in the home are deadly to its occupants!

American Association of Suicidology website, citing United States Centers for Disease Control data, April 12, 2013.

Also, citing more recent CDC data in 2012:

Teen suicide is a growing problem, a new study shows.

Nearly 1 in 6 high school students has seriously considered suicide, and 1 in 12 has attempted it, according to the semi-annual survey on youth risk behavior published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Overall, the suicide rate among teens has climbed in the past few years, from 6.3% in 2009 to 7.8% in 2011, numbers which reflect the trend gaining national attention as more teen suicides are reported as a result of bullying.

New York Daily News, Meghan Neal, June 9, 2012

So can we compare Australia and the United States? Our cultures are pretty similar and our cultural media are pretty similar. (Where to you think the idea came from for American Idol: We copied Australia! Where did Rupert Murdoch come from: Australia!). We both have lots of access to violent video games and sensational reporting of mass violence. We both have young men 15-25 still developing their social identities, with their brains not fully developed until about age 25. From other studies I’ve seen, their young men are having similar problems to ours today with identity, substance abuse and interpersonal violence. Yet with this one variable – drastically reducing the presence of guns – they have drastically reduced both individual suicides and mass shootings.

If a depressed, suicidal, narcissistic, possibly schizophrenic young man has a gun handy, who knows what momentary impulse may overtake him to harm himself – and others! Without easy access to guns, suicide becomes a lot more difficult and messy. If a mentally unstable young man (like the Sandy Hook shooter, the Gabby Giffords shooter, the Colorado theater shooter, the Columbine shooters and many others) with a fantasy of suicidal fame didn’t have easy access to assault weapons, would our suicide and mass murder rate decrease like that in Australia? If we can change any of the factors affecting today’s young men, we may make a huge difference. If we want to try research-based methods for setting national policy, instead of unsupported catchy phrases, Australia’s example could be a good place to start.

About Bill Eddy

Bill Eddy, L.C.S.W., J.D. is a family law attorney, therapist and mediator, with over thirty years’ experience working with children and families. He is also the President of the High Conflict Institute based in San Diego, CA, which provides speakers, trainers and consultants on the subject of managing high-conflict people. He teaches Psychology of Conflict at the Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law in Los Angeles, CA, and at Monash University School of Law in Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of several books, including: It’s All Your Fault! 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything (now available in Spanish and English). For more information please visit: http://www.HighConflictInstitute.com.

Guest Blog by Bill Eddy: Guns and Isolated Young Men (Part 2)

In last week’s blog, I raised three issues to consider when addressing a social problem, then I talked about the first one: avoiding “all-or-nothing” thinking in addressing the problem of mass shootings, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and the Aurora theater in Colorado. I see at least seven factors that need to be addressed, keeping in mind that young men between 15 and 25 are the majority of these shooters. Their mental health issues, when combined with over-exposure to violent video games (such as the Columbine shooters) and over-exposure to dramatic news coverage and easy access to automatic weapons, can be very powerful problems.

In this blog, I focus on the second issue: B) Problem-solving rather than defensive reacting.

There have been many angry debates over what should be done, especially regarding gun control. Once again, we have seen some of the dynamics that Don Saposnek and I wrote about in our book Splitting America (how today’s politicians act like parents in a high-conflict divorce). The National Rifle Association (NRA) has taken an angry, all-or-nothing position, that no restrictions should be made even on automatic assault weapons. This isn’t just a position – it’s a highly emotional, defensive position. I have heard those in support of this position arguing heatedly that these weapons are necessary in the extremely unlikely event that the government would come into their homes someday – that they would need extreme fire power against the government. This reminds me of the extreme position against the Affordable Healthcare Act (ObamaCare) that argued that the next thing the government would do is to force people to eat broccoli.

What I have learned about the brain over the last few years, is that some people really are afraid. In fact, one study showed that conservative college students in England have larger right hemisphere amygdalas in their brains. They have a natural tendency to experience fear and believe in it. Perhaps this is part of social biology, so that some people are paying attention to danger signs that most people miss. So it’s important to not disregard or disrespect those who really do fear extreme circumstances, even though they are highly unlikely. Instead, we should listen and try to learn if there is a basis for this fear when it comes to this issue.

On the other hand, there are those who would argue for gun control in an extreme manner. However, in reality there are not many people who seem to be taking a total disarmament position. Perhaps those parents who have lost children, such as at Sandy Hook in Connecticut, may feel like taking such a position. It would be very understandable, as I have a lot of empathy for them and can’t imagine their pain.

But in reality, most people are looking at this problem as a problem to solve, and not letting defensive emotions take control of the actual decision-making. I am very glad for this. Connecticut politicians get a lot of credit for the decisions they made last week, rather than engaging in the more popular high conflict politics. They made some new laws with a ban on gun ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds, and a requirement that existing ones be registered. They expanded on their existing assault weapons ban, all firearm sales now require background checks and they established a registry of weapons offenders.

These steps are significant in addressing the concerns I have about isolated young men between 15 and 25 with mental health issues seeking the most powerful and dramatic weapons to inflict the most damage in fame-oriented, suicidal shootings. Such a person is much less likely to walk into a school house with a single shot pistol or rifle. They would easily be wrestled to the ground (although injuring or killing someone beforehand) or get shot themselves by a school guard. No fame in that, and a possible life-time of prison and humiliation. That’s not their goal. Their goal is to compensate for feeling weak and vulnerable, by dramatically topping records for destructive violence while committing suicide (thereby controlling the whole process of their fate).

Society needs to understand this type of highly-narcissistic suicidal thinking – and how to disarm it. Let’s hear it for the problem-solving approach of the Connecticut bipartisan politicians! And perhaps this problem-solving approach, rather than just defensive reacting, may even fit another isolated young man in the news these days: Kim Jong-Un – the possibly narcissistic young leader of North Korea!

Part 3 of this blog will look at some of the results from Australia on reducing guns after a mass shooting several years ago.

About Bill Eddy

Bill Eddy, L.C.S.W., J.D. is a family law attorney, therapist and mediator, with over thirty years’ experience working with children and families. He is the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego, California. He is also the President of the High Conflict Institute, which provides speakers, trainers and consultants on the subject of managing high-conflict people in legal disputes, workplace disputes, healthcare and education. He has taught Negotiation and Mediation at the University of San Diego School of Law and he teaches Psychology of Conflict at the Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law. He is the author of several books, including: It’s All Your Fault! 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything. For more information about Bill Eddy, please visit: http://www.HighConflictInstitute.com.

April Newsletter: Interview with Retired Family Court Judge

Read our April Newsletter 

INTERVIEW EXCERPT: On March 20, 2013, I sat down with Judge Susan Finlay (retired), who became a divorce mediator with the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) in San Diego in 2012 after many years as a Family Court judge.

PREVENTING HIGH CONFLICT DIVORCE EXCERPT: Kate and Nathan entered the New Ways for Families program shortly after the birth of their son, Jacob. At the time, they were fiercely divided on the custody and visitation schedule, and what was in the best interest of their son.

NEW BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT:  Spanish version of Bill Eddy’s best-seller “It’s All Your Fault!” just released!   Todo es tu Culpa!

For more information about High Conflict Institute, please visit www.highconflictinstitute.com.

Guest Blog by Bill Eddy: Guns and Isolated Young Men (Part 1)

Managing social problems seems to be similar to managing personal relationships – the solutions need to involve: A) Avoiding all-or-nothing thinking; B) Focusing on problem-solving rather than defensive reacting; and C) Looking at the experience or research of others. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately in terms of the debate about how to prevent shootings, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut and the Aurora theater shooting in Colorado. Both have been in the news this week.

In today’s blog I apply this approach to the first issue (Parts 2 and 3 to follow next week):

A) All-or-nothing thinking: I don’t think there’s one clear-cut cause for these shootings. I think it’s primarily a combination of at least seven factors:

• Socially-isolated

• Young men between 15 and 25,

• With mental health problems,

• With easy access to automatic weapons,

• Over-exposure to violent video games,

• Over-exposure to dramatic news coverage, and

• Overlooked warning signs.

Arguments about “whose fault” these shootings are seem pointless to me when it’s so clear that it is “all of the above.”

According to this week’s news, the socially-isolated, 20-year-old Connecticut shooter was obsessed with news coverage of other mass shootings: the Nickel Mines Amish school shootings in 2006 (10 children were shot – five died) and the 2011 killings in Norway (77 were killed, primarily teenagers at a summer camp). (www.lancasteronline.com, 4-2-13) The dramatic news coverage of each event appears to be the training ground for someone who makes it a steady diet. When young men with mental health problems are socially-isolated, this fantasy of power and fame can become overwhelmingly seductive.

Brain scientists say that the adolescent brain isn’t fully developed until about age 25. Before then, they are still learning impulse control, a healthy self identity, a positive role in society, social skills for dealing with adult types of relationships with other young men and women. When they are allowed to become socially-isolated, they don’t learn these skills and historically many simply stayed socially-isolated. But with access to dramatic news stories and violent video games, they can enshroud themselves in an environment of power and fame. Those with a mental illness, such as depression, schizophrenia or a personality disorder, are more susceptible than the average person to be influenced by such fantasy images and have a hard time separating fantasy from reality.

One of the biggest changes that I think society could make to immediately reduce some of this susceptibility toward violent fantasies of power and fame, is for the news to withhold the name and pictures of the shooter. Isolated young men appear to engage in these shootings with the distorted fantasy that they, too, will be plastered all over the news media and receive power and fame for engaging in the most dramatic deeds.

Why do you think that isolated young men with mental health problems seek guns for mass shootings of the most vulnerable people? That’s what it takes to get the type of extreme attention they seek to overcome their social isolation feelings. Shooting an individual gets little or no news coverage. Whenever I read about a shooter having a stockpile of news reports about other mass shootings, I believe that they are seeking the social power and fame that they have been unable to get through positive social activities.

If they would be treated as an anonymous person by withholding their name and photographs of themselves, the power and fame incentive would be significantly reduced. This would not remove the public reporting of family background, investigations of their homes, and learning from their psychological problems. We just wouldn’t hear their names or see their pictures. We can easily nip that in the bud by doing what is already done in other areas of the news, such as withholding the names of rape victims, child criminals, etc.

For a dozen years, I was a child and family counselor, and worked with many teenage boys and young adults. I learned a lot about normal and abnormal adolescent narcissism and how they think. My simple suggestion is just one of many ways we need to address the social isolation issue. We also need better identification of adolescent mental health problems, better treatment and better funding of social activities for young men. I strongly believe that this social isolation is a factor which has not been recognized enough in the all-or-nothing discussions about causes of these shootings. (Parts 2 and 3 next week.)

About Bill Eddy

Bill Eddy, L.C.S.W., J.D. is a family law attorney, therapist and mediator, with over thirty years’ experience working with children and families. He is the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego, California. He is also the President of the High Conflict Institute, which provides speakers, trainers and consultants on the subject of managing high-conflict people in legal disputes, workplace disputes, healthcare and education. He has taught Negotiation and Mediation at the University of San Diego School of Law and he teaches Psychology of Conflict at the Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law. He is the author of several books, including: It’s All Your Fault! 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything. For more information about Bill Eddy, please visit: http://www.HighConflictInstitute.com.