The "Anger" Weapon

xdude wrote:That written, I've also experienced, and read various forum posts to the effect that the PD/NON or PD/PD bond can feel (unhealthy) stronger for people with some disorders IF the other person repeatedly comes back. Sort of a confirmation that if someone comes back after a fight, it's a kind of proof that they really care.

I could see that. At the beginning of my current relationship I'd mess with him, trying to get a response. He didn't enable it, though, so the tendency fizzled out and I had to find other ways to have it proven to me.

I can imagine how that would be really damaging to someone who isn't used to being around someone with that level of emotional intensity. I grew up around it and found that at first I was very bored with a functional relationship that didn't enable me.

Mavet wrote:

xdude wrote:That written, I've also experienced, and read various forum posts to the effect that the PD/NON or PD/PD bond can feel (unhealthy) stronger for people with some disorders IF the other person repeatedly comes back. Sort of a confirmation that if someone comes back after a fight, it's a kind of proof that they really care.

I could see that. At the beginning of my current relationship I'd mess with him, trying to get a response. He didn't enable it, though, so the tendency fizzled out and I had to find other ways to have it proven to me.

I can imagine how that would be really damaging to someone who isn't used to being around someone with that level of emotional intensity. I grew up around it and found that at first I was very bored with a functional relationship that didn't enable me.

Problem is I am use to it, and it always just hurts

p.s. For whatever it is worth, seeing that push-pull honestly, very big step

Best wishes,

X

katana wrote:

orion8591 wrote:But to be effective at Verbal Judo, Thompson first told the cops that he trained that they must cover up their buttons...because if people see your buttons, and know how to push them, then they own you.

There's a different way those cops could overcome that problem, by being unafraid to face their own fears of having weaknesses, so every time another person pushes their buttons they simply recognise it and re-evaluate having learned something.

Katana

In fact the deep core of Thompson's philosophy is understanding and respect, not only as a act to accomplish peaceful arrests (and make no mistake, cops are human and don't always feel sterling, therefore they have to be consumate actors), but also in understanding that people (including themselves) are caught up in large to gigantic forces beyond their control.

It is wise to understand your weaknesses before these forces start to overwhelm you...and so one of Thompson's directives to the cops he taught in effect was: "What are you weaknesses, what are you afraid of...go home and write down your weaknesses and fears, know them..know yourself beforehand."

Those are the buttons. Once you are adult, it's very difficult to dissolve them completely, at least not without years of expensive therapy. How many have the time and resources - in all liklihood your buttons will be with you in some small way until you die.
So, how can you hide them from strangers? If they get found anyway (like by a disordered ex-spouse who knows what they are), have you anticipated the angle of attack?...because in getting caught off guard you are bound to act out emotionally in a negative way. So its better to work out a plan beforehand, to mentally prepare, so you will be able to defeat the other's attempts to trigger you.

Besides cops, also good advice for anyone who must face conflict with another

orion8591 wrote:Katana

In fact the deep core of Thompson's philosophy is understanding and respect, not only as a act to accomplish peaceful arrests (and make no mistake, cops are human and don't always feel sterling, therefore they have to be consumate actors), but also in understanding that people (including themselves) are caught up in large to gigantic forces beyond their control.

It is wise to understand your weaknesses before these forces start to overwhelm you...and so one of Thompson's directives to the cops he taught in effect was: "What are you weaknesses, what are you afraid of...go home and write down your weaknesses and fears, know them..know yourself beforehand."

Those are the buttons. Once you are adult, it's very difficult to dissolve them completely, at least not without years of expensive therapy. How many have the time and resources - in all liklihood your buttons will be with you in some small way until you die.
So, how can you hide them from strangers? If they get found anyway (like by a disordered ex-spouse who knows what they are), have you anticipated the angle of attack?...because in getting caught off guard you are bound to act out emotionally in a negative way. So its better to work out a plan beforehand, to mentally prepare, so you will be able to defeat the other's attempts to trigger you.

Besides cops, also good advice for anyone who must face conflict with another

Yes I see your point, most cops are too busy being cops, have responsibilities like their jobs and families etc, to spend time breaking down their weaknesses in extensive therapy. They also take responsibility over the things that keep them busy, so taking time away from those activities or concerns isn't so plausible for them. They're also functional enough in their lives not to need to - most cops aren't crazy, or if they are it will begin to show and impact their work to a reasonable extent. The writing things down looks pretty sensible in a whole load of situations.

I suppose I'm attempting to look at it more from a perspective of PDs and relationships than cops. For example, if an action has a consequence on my behaviour, another person may assume I'm "triggered" in some way, when that may not actually be accurate. If a person verbally insults you, you will likely only react to it if it triggers you. If a person takes an actions which has a separate effect on you or your life which is not simply emotional, you do not need to be triggered to react to that action.

"Luckily for me" most of my own triggers and buttons are things that would tend to prevent me working, e.g. as a cop. lol It explains a lot of why things like attempts at formal education send me insane.

Having to hide your weaknesses or buttons from loved ones is basically having to create barriers against intimacy, so in other words the person is then asking for an emotionally charged intimate relationship where the only way for the other person to create emotional safety is to withhold intimacy.

That situation doesn't tend to create genuinely open and intimate relationships, but a situation closer to "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" type communication, where one person withholds and conceals those things from the other.

That's asking for an unhealthy relationship for the sake of manipulating another person to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, so while it might appear to save the other person from "being triggered" in the eyes of the person creating the conflict, its actually not particularly helpful.

When people argue in relationships, the conflicts normally happen to ensure both people's needs are met. So if one person is refusing to meet another person's needs, e.g. through attempting to push their buttons, the other person may respond with anger and/or aggression to assert/stand their ground, simply because this is how most relations between living things happen - one does something that upsets another, this causes conflict, they fight it out (often verbally in the case of humans) for the sake of resolving what was causing the conflict. - Assertiveness may sometimes be more affective, but instinctive reactions do not necessarily always = buttons pushed or triggered either.

People seeing that reaction as suffering is an interesting take. If a person takes actions that would essentially drive a person crazy if they were psychologically vulnerable to them, that would essentially cause suffering. But if the person is clearly aware of what is going on, and simply becomes aggressive in response, its interesting if some people would see that defensive or aggressive response as suffering, rather than the psychological equivalent of a person blocking someone who is attempting to hit them, and then possibly hitting them back.

(I'm certainly not saying cops or others aren't prone to buttons being pushed, but I am wondering to what extent some people who attempt to push buttons are really actually pushing them as much as they imagine, and the strong possibility that they are creating situations of "false empowerment" where they feel in control, but are actually achieving very little in the way of personal power over the situation.)

People who are able to have healthy[happy] relationships protect themselves against the particular things that are buttons for them personally by watching out for them in the dating process and being put off by people doing things that they feel particularly uncomfortable with, where people who are most prone to ending up as an abused partner in relationships actually gravitate towards those things in the attempt to re-enact them.

Cluster Bs who have the problem of attempting to push other people's buttons are likely to attempt those behaviours with anyone - healthy or otherwise - and actively create the conflict situation instead of just gravitating towards others who do because those situations appear to exist to them before they even begin to exist for the other person.

...and If the person does not react in any way at all to psychological stressors and the abuse escalates to taking actions that affect the person directly in other ways, its inevitable there will be some sort of reaction, and that reaction might be inappropriately read as a person's buttons being successfully pushed. But that would be like saying trying to prevent a person from punching you in the face is being triggered in some way, and that a person who is not triggered will just ignore the person and let them keep hitting them. Lol.

For a different but parallel example, if I try to study, the "normal" actions of the educational institution and those working for it and in it are conflict to me - without me needing to gravitate to situations within that containing conflict. (This could apply in other situations with similar triggers too, including constant "existential triggers".)

Whether I assume the other people in those situations are experiencing conflict when they are not, or being triggered or affected by my actions when in fact they may not be, is something that probably happens less than it would do in a psychological interchange in a relationship for example, but its an interesting question - do they experience my actions how I'd intend or expect them to?

I understand needing conflict in other ways, because in other sense I function very badly without being in potentially dangerous or conflicted situations. But its already been mentioned the Non is just pushed further away by these actions, and I'd change the description of a never ending exhausting test, to repeated actions taken by one person which consistently attempt to destroy the relationship. Unless the Non is codependant, they won't be attempting to pass any test at all.

And if the person fails to react sufficiently [which "covering their buttons" and anticipating would provide a similar affect to,] and the person creating the conflict then carries on escalating the abuse, you only arrive at the point where their behaviour crosses the other person's boundaries.

Good points Katana
Sometimes, knowing what is expected when someone tries to push your buttons, but not participating, the button pusher sorta implodes, emotionally overcome by their own need to generate anger, which they now cannot release. At other times, they 'suck it up,' apologize, and a new attempt at a healthy dialogue arises.

It all seems to depend on how much self-control they have - how intense their problem is.

But if your buttons get pushed - then the emotional charge is 'transferred' to you, and the unhealthy dialogue continues, with less achieved, at a decidedly lower level.

This might explain why people who need to "generate" anger are attracted to people who have high levels of anger in the first place. In the case of 2 cluster Bs, all you get when one reacts to the other with anger is one person with the need to wind their partner up and another person discharging their own underlying anger at that partner, so both would end up basically using each other to meet the needs of their own disorder.

Its interesting you said need to release - I think maybe "sucking it up" and trying to get whatever healthy dialogue they can get is just as unhealthy as the interchange they'd try to get by getting angry reactions out of others. It makes me wonder whether a need to wind up others and create anger is somehow an indirect result of the person being unable to express or release their own anger in direct ways them self.

Outwardly displayed or released anger is not always negative.

Katana

"This might explain why people who need to "generate" anger are attracted to people who have high levels of anger in the first place"

IMO your observation perfectly characterizes some of the Nons here (past, present, and future) who have had codependent relationships with HPD's (='Non does not necessarily mean normal'). Yeah, if for whatever you get off starting explosions, you are going to look for people ready to blow up...you are going to try to find and uncover those buttons.

It makes me wonder whether a need to wind up others and create anger is somehow an indirect result of the person being unable to express or release their own anger in direct ways them self

Yes! What I have seen is many disordered people have substantial, legitimate anger issues, most often with their parents, but they were / are unable to express their anger against their parents. Children are new human beings, they have tabula rasa...an acute sensitivity for psychological injustices - they yearn for a level reckoning of wrongs inflicted - this is especially true of adolescents who have a that freshness plus more a sophisticated intellect. But because abusive parents have nearly total control of your well-being between the ages of 0 to 16 /18 years, seldom does the abused child see any justice, unless the abuse is severe enough to come to the attention of public authorities. If the abusive parent is smart enough to keep the abuse psychological, non-physical, they seem to instinctively know the case against them by the authorities will be even weaker and so emboldened they proceed with relative impunity.
So when a child finally graduates from this hellish experience they have not been able, and possibly may never be able, to utter a single sentence of protest against their abusive parent. By this time complex formations and complexes like identity with the aggressor ('might makes right') have taken root in their psyche, and like you observe the young adult individual now has a need to find psychological place-holders that simultaneously represent their abusive parent and their wounded inner child. And it's important to note that with respect to the wounded inner child...they find him or her in others not to empathize with that child, but instead to persecute it...in an out of control person with a history of abuse their own wounded inner child is despised, because it is a perpetual victim, weak, helpless, abused at will by the capricious whim of another far more powerful - their abusive, tyrannical parent.
Most often these place-holders are significant others: g'f's, b/f's, and spouses, because these relationships are as intimate (or even more so) as the original toxic parent-child relationship.

But sometimes you can see feel people you just met who have issues fishing for your buttons, especially if you work in an authority position.

outwardly displayed or released anger is not always negative

So true. I would say when the anger is reeled back in and properly expressed towards the original antagonist (most often the abusive parent), either in real life or symbolically in therapy, the net result is positive.

It just confuses me and is so sad that the anger is relayed to the people who actually care about the HPD.
The ones who try their hardest to create some form of stability. Once you begin to compromise you begin to compromise yourself. For what you think there is no reason at all wham you get it both barrels, fabricated lies where you attempt to justify your innocence, Trying to find the grey area with someone who is just black and white. Never an easy path having to walk backwards and check your steps so as you do not cause any concern for the HPD, But their great detective work always brings issues to the fore.

orion -

I agree that much of the anger stems from repressed anger toward the parents, in part because children are often not allowed to fight back, but perhaps in part too, because there is an implication that viewing the parents for who they really are/were, leads to the hurtful conclusion that the child was never really loved. That's a bitter pill to swallow.

Orion, I actually found your post quite difficult to respond to because I had to look at some of my own stuff to reply.

I wrote quite a long personal response in the end, but decided my own response didn't really belong in this forum and would be more of a thread hijack than anything else, so if anyone does want to read it let me know or start a reply thread to the idea in other forums I guess.

What you said about people seeking out both their parent, and their wounded inner child in relationships is interesting -

I suppose that's because when a person has an insecure attachment,(when the attachment to their parent was not reciprocated properly, consistently, they were abused by their parent etc.) everything they do is trying to complete that attachment to their parent, (at the same time as whatever is going on with seeking out their own wounded inner child in others.)

The natural response people are usually supposed to have to abuse, which is to try to attempt to complete the attachment to the parent, and to take on board what the parent taught them about them self - self-hatred etc, which leads to people seeking out parental placeholders and attempting to get those people to provide the love their parents didn't give consistently, but if there is also identification with the agressor due to shame, or other causes of a need to throw off the identity of the wounded inner child and the self-hate with it, then abusive behaviour towards the person taking that place can happen too.

The reason I say my own response doesn't belong here is because I only seek out the wounded inner child and instead of parental placeholder, the aggressor identification that for me developed in response to direct experiences [choice between being controlled or preventing it] rather than from partial attachment and self hate. (mainly because for me the response is reversed because I wasn't able to attach normally.)

So yes I see how the end result would be the person seeking out those placeholders would end up treating their partner both as their parent and their [hated] self, - so they don't have to be them self. Because if there isn't a need not to be them self, the result wouldn't involve abusive behaviour towards a partner if they are seeking out both the parent and their child self.

Abusing the wounded inner child in a person's self through others who act as a placeholder for that suggests the function of that abusive behaviour is displacing that identity and self-hate onto another person.

e.g. to escape feelings like shame or the need to escape the unpleasant experience of self-hate ?

Some of it sounds a little bit like my own "then they are me" except different - with people who represent "parent" to me, I have to destroy them, (or if there are measures in place to prevent me from doing that, get angry and depressed.) This is so "they are me" - neutralising the threat of control and possibly somehow escaping the victim position, but without the self-hate - once they "are me", they are "neutralised" and I no longer have a problem with them.

(opposite - It seems in the other context coming from insecure attachment, the placeholders are the wounded inner child to start with.) But I can't have parent or self in the same interaction, people either represent one or the other, (or just "other"), and "parent" is simply representative of "authority" or control.

whiteknight6 wrote:It just confuses me and is so sad that the anger is relayed to the people who actually care about the HPD.
The ones who try their hardest to create some form of stability. Once you begin to compromise you begin to compromise yourself. For what you think there is no reason at all wham you get it both barrels, fabricated lies where you attempt to justify your innocence, Trying to find the grey area with someone who is just black and white. Never an easy path having to walk backwards and check your steps so as you do not cause any concern for the HPD, But their great detective work always brings issues to the fore.

This is interesting cause I don't just see it like trying to find a grey area or attempting to justify innocence, to me there's nothing to need to justify to me, and if the other person can't see things as they are, i'll try to explain but the only person really faced with the fabricated lies in that sense is them. As far as I'm concerned, its more like, I attempt to relate to another person and they throw BS at me - OK something is clearly wrong, and there is nothing immediate I can do except to prevent them from throwing that BS at me if it causes me stress or any direct problem. I know what's true and what's not, and even where some things are grey areas I can see when a person's actions would be abusive regardless of what the truth of any of those grey areas is, so in the end, the exact details can become both important

You sound like you're working on eggshells. When things happen, idk about other people's brains, but mine tends to put things together and see the bigger picture. From there, I don't need to retrace steps etc, because I already see what's gone on as an entirety.

I might not get every single exact detail down in my memory forever, but I have no problem seeing what's going on as a whole, which makes it very difficult to mess the details around when the over all message is still going to be very similar whichever way a few details go.

"Detective work - ?" Detective work of what, for what purpose? What's there to find out? If its over some past disagreement they might as well just say "I still haven't forgiven you for that time when..." - which is a feeling and is perfectly valid, but not much to do with "detective work".

You sound like you're being pulled into their world.

xdude wrote:orion -

I agree that much of the anger stems from repressed anger toward the parents, in part because children are often not allowed to fight back, but perhaps in part too, because there is an implication that viewing the parents for who they really are/were, leads to the hurtful conclusion that the child was never really loved. That's a bitter pill to swallow.

I agree with this. Even if you didn't attach normally to parents, the idea that nobody loved you is a bitter pill to swallow, even if in many ways you already knew it or felt that way in the first place. It takes some time to come to terms with, and in some ways that must be worse with insecure attachment than with no real attachment, because while I gave up on love or attachment and just focused on survival because the first was impossible but the second had pretty good chances, constantly struggling to find attachment and love and having to accept you weren't loved must be a hard thing to do. Idk, maybe I do understand because its something I went through in a way when I stopped trying to look for it as a child. Maybe not, maybe going through that stuff constantly as an adult and having to accept it then makes it harder, idk.