![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
i am always catching myself thinking, oh that was such a typical borderline/obsessive thing to do. i know it isn't right, but to a certain extent, i do define myself by my disorders. how can i stop doing this? the labels do help me stop and think about my behavior, since i have the characteristics of OCD/BPD/bipolar disorder down in my mind, but sometimes i think that i act the way that i am expected to considering the disorders i have. i spend too much time wondering if a certain idea or behavior is characteristic of which disorder. i think that when you have more than one, sometimes it is impossible to pinpoint because they all blend together and create ideas and behaviors that are unique and not easily categorized. thoughts?
SM
Posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2005, at 18:02:19
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
I try to think in terms of 'was that helpful / unhelpful' or 'healthy / unhealthy' or 'hurtful / not hurtful' etc.
I don't give a sh*t about the damned diagnosis any more. Is that helpful / unhelpful???
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 18:13:30
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
Naming is such a powerful tool. If you can name something you can master it.
Unfortunately they can't seem to find a proper name for my disorder. My therapist thinks I'm depressed right now, but I don't really think so. At any rate I know it's not my main trouble.
OCD fits, but it by no means covers everything.
I want a name!!! I want a title!!! I want to understand!!!
Posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 19:48:02
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)? » smokeymadison, posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2005, at 18:02:19
now that i think about it, i can't think of a time that i have behaved a certain way BECAUSE i have the label. it seems the other way around. i usually stop what i am doing or about to do because i have the label. so it most be helpful. i think that i feel constrained by the labels because i do not associate success with having them. and i want very much to succeed. i wonder what percentage actually get where they want to be out of those who have these disorders? i suppose it really doesn't matter, but i want to know! i am like a cancer patient in that i want to know my chances. ok, so i have more control than a cancer patient does. still want to know!
SM
Posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 19:50:20
In reply to Well, I'd like to...., posted by Dinah on January 23, 2005, at 18:13:30
Sorry. i feel pretty well covered in my diagnoses. but it is ridiculous, having three of them. sigh. life is not simple!!!
SM
Posted by Atticus on January 23, 2005, at 20:34:21
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
That's a great question, smokey. I was in an intensive 18-week, 3 days a week outpatient group therapy program right after I was released from the lock-up psych ward for opening up my left wrist. I've got a label -- bipolar with rapid cycling (means I flip from manic to depressive and back again unusually rapidity, sometime in the space of a single really bad day -- these are the days when I apologize to my boss in advance and ask her to let me know if my behavior seems off; I find it hard to see from the inside out). In any case (sorry to run off the rails there for a bit), some people at the outpatient group would say "I'm a bipolar I or bp II or depressed or have panic disorder." I hated that. I felt like they'd let the illness take control of their self-conceptions. My usual response to a bad patch is to try to gut out a poem, no matter how weak it is; it gives me a sense of the person I was almost 9 years ago before the chemicals in my brain went loopy. Atticus
Posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 23:01:28
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)? » smokeymadison, posted by Atticus on January 23, 2005, at 20:34:21
so you have been at it for nine years now. i have been there for four. but a lot of my diagnoses are pretty recent. less than a year for the BPD and bipolar disorder. does it get easier over time to distinguish btw yourself and your mental disorders? my therapists have tried to get me to view all my thoughts and behaviors that are not "normal" as disease. i resist thinking that because it is ME that acts and thinks the way i do. is it helpful to draw a line between yourself and your "pathology?"
SM
Posted by justyourlaugh on January 23, 2005, at 23:56:16
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)? » Atticus, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 23:01:28
wow!..
many many years dealing with doctors!..
a few years ago i demanded to see my chart..
(s)
i read it all infront of social worker..
he tought i would "freak"
but he didnt understand..
i am not "words"
i am not a file in a hospital..
i am not ill.
i may have an illness but i am not the illness..
jyl
Posted by partlycloudy on January 24, 2005, at 4:35:55
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
I think that when I finally got a dx there was a lot of relief in understanding what had been wrong for so long. Since then and as symptoms have become more manageable with medication, and my introspection improved with therapy, I feel like I've assimilated the diagnoses rather than let myself be defined by them. So, I'm partlycloudy: green carded Canadian, wife, daughter and sister, lonely but smiling faced, avid book reader, interpreter of cereal boxes and cat language, professional proscrastinator; and bipolar2, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic attacks.
Posted by Shortelise on January 24, 2005, at 11:44:48
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
No I don't but having an idea of what the diagnoses is helps me to know where some of my challenged areas are. That helps.
On the other hand, sometimes when I think about the diagnoses, I think of how finking frittered I am, and feel helpless.
But I do not define myself by it. Does it sound as if I do?
ShortE
Posted by Atticus on January 24, 2005, at 12:25:52
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)? » Atticus, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 23:01:28
As the survivor of a suicide attempt that came close to succeeding, I find trying to achieve some kind of mental compartmentalization between the parts of me that existed pre-illness and the behaviors that now exist mid-illness is helpful. It's almost like trying to step back and analyze whether something I've just said or done is socially inappropriate and then see if it connects more logically to my natural personality or to symptoms of the condition. Usually, it's a bit of a tangle, but I am working very hard to get better at this. The bottom line for me, I think, is to conceive of myself as a person who happens to have an illness that causes problems sometimes. I tend to use the analogy to diabetes a great deal: diabetes doesn't go away (like my bipolar disorder), it needs to be monitored and controlled with meds (like my bipolar disorder), and it doesn't have to rule a person's life (like my bipolar disorder). Yes, it's quite disruptive at times (I just came off a two-month medical disability leave from work), but there's more to me than that. It doesn't stop my writing (most of the time) and I make every effort to confront and if possible overcome the perceptions that I hold that are distortions caused by the illness and therefore not rational. It's not easy, but I have this image I've created where my gravestone reads: "Atticus. He was bipolar." I don't want that to be my legacy, the primary way that people remember me. Atticus
Posted by smokeymadison on January 24, 2005, at 13:58:59
In reply to No, but, posted by Shortelise on January 24, 2005, at 11:44:48
i think that diagnoses are a double edge sword. sure, they help you change your behaviors when you catch yourself about to act "that way" on the other hand, there is the potential to get discouraged because you have the label(s). that is where i am. i am afraid i won't get anywhere in life because i have the disorders. it is a complex issue. i can't wait to talk with my T on Tuesday about it. i can't help but think that you do partially define yourself by the labels when you get them. i don't see any way around it. do you have any advice on what has helped you not get discouraged?
Posted by smokeymadison on January 24, 2005, at 14:10:54
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)? » smokeymadison, posted by Atticus on January 24, 2005, at 12:25:52
the problem for me is that i have had symptoms of OCD and depression since the third grade. that is a long time. the bipolar/BPD stuff started more recently. i find it harder to deal with the personality disorders because inherent in their description is the fact that they have "always" been there. i really don't have a pre-illness period in my life. so when trying to get "better," it means learning patterns of behavior that i have never experienced before. i don't think that it is impossible, but it is still very hard to change.
the funny thing abour BOD is that years later, say 20 years, there are a percentage of people who no longer qualify for the disorder. what does that say about the disorder? perhaps the very idea that personality disorders are so ingrained in the person that the best one can do is treat the symptoms is inherently flawed. the think that the DSM does not take into account the fact that our personalities are always changing. they do not stop changing and evolving when one reaches adulthood. there are some new studies out that indicate this fact. i should look them up. something to pull out and reread when i get discouraged.
SM
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 25, 2005, at 1:42:30
In reply to Re: do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by justyourlaugh on January 23, 2005, at 23:56:16
Wow!
> i am not "words"
> i am not a file in a hospital..
> i am not ill.
> i may have an illness but i am not the illness..
> jylYou are the one! You can see yourelf separate from your actions... You have a concept of self!!!
From that position, my failures no longer were able highjack my feelings and blackmail my sensibilities!!! Is this what you are saying, toooo? I think so!
Hoooorah for both of us!!! Your "oink" got my attention... After this, I'm listening.......... carefully! ...with awe an great admiration!
Rod
Posted by just plain jane on January 26, 2005, at 8:51:15
In reply to do you define yourself by your disorder(s)?, posted by smokeymadison on January 23, 2005, at 17:20:22
no.
"i am, and have always beeen, your friend."
no... that was Spock to Kirk via Bones.
i am myself. i am unique, the only me there is and the only person like me.
some my behavior and thought processes may fall into the technical disorder categories of societal necessity, but they are behaviors and thought processes, not illnesses, as they have been since well before i received the diagnoses. in those days i was just "weird". i know several of you i have conversed also felt or were labelled weird. but this does not define me.
i have physical features, which are basically static, but they do not define me.
my communicative skills are fairly well developed in my native languages. my speech patterns, voice, accent, inflections, are all identifiably mine unless i alter them. but they do not deine me.
my behavior and attitude can intentionally or unintentionally cover an extensive range. my thought *processes* are biological/chemical in nature, my ability to control my responses to them fluctuates with mood, circumstance, medication, desire. but these things do not define me.
all of these things and more can be classified by societal standards, whatever they may be today, which have undoubtedly been labelled something else before and will be labelled something else in the future. these are what comprise my "disorders" and my "normal" behavior. still, they do not define me.
i define myself by who i am today, what my genuine character is; who i am. the who who lives in the core of all of this. the who who decides, ultimately, if and what she is going to, or not going to do; whether or not she believes things, mostly on a subconscious, perhaps instinctive, level.
i can have major traumas dealing with the emotional pain of bygone traumas; be what appears as over the edge, angry, sad, in agony, frustrated, any of the reactional states, but they are not allowed to violate my *self*.
because i am, by definition, simply myself. and her, i must take care of.
and how are you this fine morning?
just plain jane.
Posted by Shortelise on January 28, 2005, at 1:26:20
In reply to Re: No, but » Shortelise, posted by smokeymadison on January 24, 2005, at 13:58:59
Sorry, I get lost around here, lose posts - I missed this one.
In a way, I wish I'd never figured out that I am a borderline. My T would never had given me this diagnoses, and said it is writtne no where, NO WHERE in my file. But when I told him I'd figured it out, and he never said, ShortE, that is not you, that is not you at all. He said no one is any of the things in the DSM, but we're all a combination of many things. He said that. And I believed him, or I believe him, or most of the time I believe him.
Still, it was like a nightmare for a while - it wouldn't leave me alone.
You see, once a long time ago, a friend who is a therapist unwisely said that a mutual acquiantance of ours was a borderline. She said it with such, not horror, not disdain but, well, as if being a borderline was an awful thing. I didn't know what it meant, and didn't ask.
A few years ago, reading a book called "Necessary Losses" by Judith Viorst (and I highly recommend it) I read soemthing about borderline, thought to myself, hm, and looked it up. There was a photo of me. (Joke. Bad joke)
My T and I talked about it.
Y'know, I guess I just avoid it. It doesn't do me any good to go there, to think about myself as a completely gonzo ginko, so I try not to think about it. I do not advise avoiding things, as it would be Very Bad Advice. But it keeps me from staying on a first name basis with the dust bunnies under my bed.
In a way, Smokey, I think therapy has helped me separate the wheat from the chaff: I will worry about the manure in this pile here, and this one over here, ah, tripe and tarnation, I think I'll just let this pile go. If it wants to come back and bite me on the posterior of my posterior later, well, let it - I'll deal with it then.
But yes, labels, ugh, nasty stuff. At the moment I am stuck on being a plump middle aged woman. For some reason, I can't just be ShortE. Every time I looked in the mirror, plump middle aged woman screams in my head. Ugly, plump middle aged woman some days.
But I refuse to get discouraged. If I could get the bellowing "Borderline" out of my head, and I did, then maybe this too will pass.
I hope your session went well on Tuesday.
ShortE
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.