Tag Archives: psychotherapy

#18 – Heroes of BPD: Jeffrey Seinfeld

A few months ago I discussed Gerald Adler, a clinician who treated BPD using a psychodynamic method. Today I’ll write about Jeffrey Seinfeld, the New York-based social worker who pioneered a Fairbairnian approach to Borderline Personality Disorder.

On this blog, it has been discussed several times how psychodynamic therapists have already “cured” BPD. Here is an example of a borderline patient’s recovery from Jeffrey Seinfeld’s book, The Bad Object.


I thought the reader might be interested to hear in detail about one of the “successes” in BDP recovery that are often referenced on this blog. Her story shows how complex, challenging, and interesting the journey may sometimes be. Some of this account is paraphrased, while the parts in quotations come straight from the text:

A Case Study: Kim (from The Bad Object, pages 101-123)

At the start of her therapy with Jeffrey Seinfeld, “Kim” was a 22-year-old Irish-American young woman. From ages 17-22, she been in regular treatment with another therapist, but had made little progress. After dropping out of high school at age 16, Kim lived at home with her mother. She did not work or attend school; rather, much of her time was spent abusing alcohol and illegal drugs.

With her first therapist, Kim showed no motivation to change, and indeed would boast about antisocial and destructive behavior, including tempting friends trying to quit drugs into again using them. She would regularly miss therapy appointments without calling to cancel. Her therapist as the time described her attitude as, “Who can blame me for messing up with all I’ve been through?”

Eventually, Kim’s first therapist referred her to Jeffrey Seinfeld. He had not lost hope for her, but felt that they had reached an impasse and that a change of approach might help her. Seinfeld scheduled Kim for twice-weekly appointments at a social-work center. For the first year or so of their work, she continued to regularly miss appointments without cancelling ahead, and to abuse drugs and alcohol regularly.

Kim’s Early Childhood

Seinfeld describes Kim’s childhood in this way: “Kim was an only child in an intact family. Kim’s mother alternately neglected and overindulged her. During Kim’s first year of life, her mother often ran out of the house to escape a psychotic husband… The mother would promise to return later in the evening, but often stayed away for days at a time. Kim therefore had repeated experiences of awakening to find herself abandoned by her mother. She grew to hate falling asleep if her mother was present, and she had frequent tantrums, insisting that her mother sleep with her…”

“Kim’s psychotic father had delusions that he was Jesus Christ and that demons possessed him. He underwent psychiatric hospitalization, and his condition was finally stabilized with psychotropic medication. Kim’s mother went to work when Kim was 3 years old, leaving her at home with her father, who was on disability. He would ignore her as he read the Bible or sat in a catatonic-like stupor. If she disturbed him with her romping and playing, sometimes designed to get his attention, he would beat her…”

“Throughout childhood, Kim was on a merry-go-round in her relationships with her family members. First she would side with her mother against her father. When her mother upset her, she would go to her father and side against her mother. When her father upset her, she’d go to her grandfather and side against everyone. As an adolescent, Kim took no interest in learning at school but instead “hung out” with peers and smoked marijuana daily. She dropped out of high school at the age of 16.”

Kim’s Early Therapy – The Out of Contact Phase

Seinfeld described how Kim’s life had little structure outside of her regular abuse of alcohol and drugs. She had trouble sleeping at night, and often slept during the day instead. Kim could not bear to be alone, and would often call her drug-abusing friends from high school to chat at all hours of the day. However, these friends were becoming less interested in her as they grew older and got jobs or moved away.

Kim felt that people were always too busy for her and would eventually abandon her. Thus, according to Seinfeld, her internalized bad object was a “busy object” who did not make time for her. Kim projected this image onto outside people based partly on experience with her real mother, who often did not take time to care for her.

(If the reader is not familiar with projection of internal object relations onto present day relationships, based on past bad experience with parents, the following article may be useful – https://bpdtransformation.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-fairbairnian-object-relations-approach-to-bpd/ )

Seinfeld notes that his main experience in relation to Kim early on was that she was oblivious to him psychologically. Seinfeld felt that Kim was unaware of his separate presence, but simply “told him stories” about her adventures with drugs, friends, alcohol, and other adventures. She did not expect any help, understanding, or admiration from her therapist. Referencing the out-of-contact phase, Seinfeld stated, “My position as an object was that of a witness as opposed to an admirer.”

After several months, Kim showed the first sign of becoming aware of Seinfeld’s intent to help when she wrote about him in her diary. She felt concern that her life was “going nowhere,” and wished that she could work or attend school. Shortly after this awareness, Kim cut her wrist with a razor. Seinfeld describes how “the self-mutilation is an antidependent attack against the vulnerable, libidinal self’s expressed need for an internal holding object. The antidependent self thereby reestablishes a closed, internal, invulnerable position.” In other words, the patient identified with how people rejected her need for help and support in the past, and repeated the same behavior toward herself in the present, acting as the bad parent and punishing herself (the bad child) inside her own mind.

This early phase of Kim’s treatment was an “Out of Contact” emotional phase, as described here:


Dwelling on the Rejecting Object

Seinfeld acknowledged noted how Kim’s life was in reality extremely difficult. Her “friends” were self-absorbed and did not truly care about her, she had little support from her parents, and she had no structure in terms of a work or academic program, in addition to addictions to drugs and alcohol.

However, despite these severe difficulties, Kim did not respond by looking for positive ways out of her predicament. Rather, as Seinfeld describes,

“Kim was constantly preoccupied with how her friends and family exploited, rejected, and did not care about her. She would dwell on the rejecting object and rejected, unimportant self-image through the day and so would remain in a depressive, victimized position… Even when the external person did not in reality reject her, Kim would interpret the situation as rejection…. All of this is not to say that the external objects did not often treat Kim badly; on the contrary, they often did. But Kim had her own need to perpetually activate the all-bad self-and-object unit.”

Seinfeld noted that if one person in her life disappointed her, she would flee to a different person, but then find them equally disappointing. For example, Kim would go from her too-busy mother, to her drug-abusing and neglectful boyfriend, to her psychotic father, to friends who were moving on with their lives and did not care. Frustrated by each of these people, Kim comforted herself by using drugs, alcohol, and by stealing her mother’ car and “joyriding” despite not having a license.

Seinfeld said that none of his interpretations of her self-destructiveness worked at first. He stated,

“Throughout the first of fourteen months of her treatment, she seemed relatively out of contact with mer. She would recount her adventures and seemed to expect nothing from me but my continued presence… There was no spontaneous, gradual shift in her relatedness. She continued to miss sessions at the same rate as characterized her previous (five year) therapy… She used my empathy to justify her “who can blame me” attitude.”

The Safety of the Bad Object

Seinfeld began to intervene with Kim by gradually making her more aware of how her feelings of rejection and worthlessness were caused not only by the actual behavior of other people, but by how she responded to and interpreted their actions. Seinfeld states, “When she described a bad experience in reality, I empathized with how she felt but then shifted the focus to what she was doing to herself in her mind with that experience. It was not difficult so show that all of the external people she discussed reflected one image – that of rejection in relation to her own image as rejected.”

Seinfeld notes how Kim eventually became aware that she continually maintained a negative pattern of thinking and expectation about others, even when nothing happened in the outside world to justify such thinking. Seinfeld commented to her that such dwelling on negativity might occur because it felt safer to Kim to feel rejected than to feel accepted.

Seinfeld also beautifully described how, “I listened to all that she said and commented from the vantage point of the activation of internal object relations units. I listened to this patient as one would follow the stream of consciousness in a novel by Joyce or Proust, in which reality is always brightened or shaded by the narrator’s internal vision and experience. Kohut (1984) has suggested that such novels reflect the fragmented sense of self in severe psychopathology. One does not ignore external reality from such a vantage point; rather, close attention is given to the subtle but constant interplay between internal and external worlds.” In other words, when listening to a borderline patient speak, the skilled therapist constantly tries to perceive how reality is distorted or “colored” in a positive or negative direction by the patient’s splitting defenses.

Ambivalent Symbiosis

Seinfeld notes that the foregoing work gradually move Kim toward an ambivalent symbiosis. She gradually became aware that Seinfeld cared about her and wanted her to get better. For the first time, Kim asked her therapist in subtle ways about whether he was interested in her viewpoint. She was no longer only telling stories or complaining about abuse. She would ask Seinfeld if he felt that her mother and boyfriend cared about her. She wanted to know if Seinfeld understood the desperation and uncertainty she felt. Seinfeld described how Kim displaced many of her wishes for closeness and support from him onto the mother and boyfriend, because it was initially too threatening to get close to Seinfeld and trust him directly.

The relationship now assumed a stormy, emotional, push-and-pull quality. Kim would want support from Seinfeld but then be angry that she only saw him occasionally for therapy. She wanted him to understand her feelings about her family, but then criticized him as overly intellectual and detached. She became jealous that Seinfeld’s own family own family got most of his time and love, while she only got the leftover scraps. Outside of sessions, she began to cut down on her drinking, but then would return to it when she felt that two hours a week with Seinfeld was inadequate. She would perceive Seinfeld, “sometimes as a saint and at other times as a psychotic with delusions of grandeur, like her father.”

Seinfeld therefore described how Kim tried to take in his support and acceptance, but would then reject it, both due to her familiarity and loyalty to the rejecting object and to her fear of vulnerability and openness toward the good object. For example, Kim asked Seinfeld for help with getting a referral to a doctor who worked in the same hospital as Seinfeld for a minor medical problem. When Seinfeld responded helpfully, she rejected the referral as inadequate by viewing the doctor negatively. This related to her being threatened by feeling that someone truly cared about her.

At this point, Kim began attending therapy regularly and never missed sessions, even becoming upset if she was forced to be late. Rather than being upset with her mother or friends as often, she became intensely upset with Seinfeld if he did not meet her demands for caring and empathy in a perfect way. Despite Seinfeld making extra time to talk to her on the phone outside of regular appointments, she would become angry when he eventually had to leave to go see his family. She viewed him as a “too busy” bad object just like her mother and friends had been the “busy bad objects” before. She again felt angry with Seinfeld for expecting her to depend on him for support, but having only a few hours a week to spend with her. She continued to alternately view him as a caring, supportive person whose help she desperately wanted, and then suddenly to transform him into a too-busy, uncaring, impersonal therapist.

Seinfeld comments on this ambivalent symbiosis in the following way:

“The patient activates the all-bad self-object unit to defend against internalization of the positive self and object unit. The insatiable need serves the antidependent defense. By making her need for contact with the external object insatiable, the patient can perceive of herself as rejected regardless of the external object’s behavior. Therefore, the patient is always able to think of her needs as being unmet, to think of herself as rejected and of the object as rejecting. The activation of the all-bad self and object unit results in depression and rage. Insatiable need, the oral self-exciting object relationships (e.g. use of alcohol while rejecting a truly supportive other), is then activated to counter the depression and rage. In this regard, the all-bad self-object relations unit becomes a vicious cycle constituting both the rejecting and exciting objects… Insatiable need serves to maintain the perception of the object as rejecting in antidependent defense. This patient succinctly stated the antidependent position, “If I don’t think you like me, why should I bother to like you?”

In other words, it’s necessary to understand how the patient is an active agent in perpetuating their view of the therapist and others as rejecting (creating an impossible-to-fulfill, or insatiable need) rather than potentially helpful and positive.

The Transition to Therapeutic Symbiosis

Seinfeld now constantly remarked upon the ways in which Kim focused on the ways in which he (Seinfeld) was not available because this felt safer and more familiar than focusing on the ways in which he was available. Kim came to recognize more and more how she herself played an active in viewing the external world negatively and keeping herself in a depressed state. She realized that if she were not provocative and looked for positive things in the outside world, they would appear there much more often than she expected. In this way, she could become an agent of positive change.

Gradually, Kim became aware of how unstructured and vulnerable her current life situation was. She realized how she was hurting herself by her continuing alcohol and drug use, and by ignoring opportunities to return to school or work.

Regarding the developing therapeutic symbiosis, Seinfeld stated,

“Kim’s vulnerable self became more connected to the internal holding object (the therapist as supporter of independent functioning and provider of love) through the transference, and she experienced severe separation anxiety. She faced the fact that her life was a mess and that she felt like a vulnerable child. She began to believe that I really was going to help her, that our relationship could affect the direction of the rest of her life.”

Seinfeld continued to explain that, at the same time as these positive feelings emerged, Kim feared that letting Seinfeld get too close to her would allow him to overpower and dominate her sense of self. She still feared trusting another person closely due to all the rejection from her past. So, she had to be very careful and gradual in the way she came to trust Seinfeld, lest he turn “bad”. Occasionally, she had dreams in which the “good” Seinfeld would turn into a psychotic madman like her father.

Gradually, Kim let herself get more and more attached to Seinfeld, and as this happened she began to feel self-empathy for the first time in her life. She remembered the alone, fearful child she had been and wanted to help herself.

Strengthening the Therapeutic Symbiosis

Kim bought a pet parrot that she would care for at home. She imagined herself as a good parent nurturing a good child most of the time. When the bird became difficult and squawky, she would briefly view herself as the bad mother and the bird as bad child. As her relationship with Seinfeld improved, she came to nurture her pet more and more and to be bothered less and less by its noisiness. As a projective container, it reinforced her positive internal self-and-object images via the fantasies of love she projected into it, supported by her relationship to Seinfeld.

Over the next year, Seinfeld described Kim’s progress as follows,

“As Kim became less depressed and angry , her vulnerability and strivings for autonomy emerged. Having decided that she must do something to change her life, she managed to earn a high school diploma. She then pursued college courses and part-time work… She brought to me her ambitions and interests for mirroring admiration. Her ambitions, which were originally grandiose, gradually became realistic. She informed her drug-addicted boyfriend that he had to stop using cocaine if he wanted to continue to see her. She saw him less as a rejecting object and more as a person with problems that interefered with his capacity for intimac. His family eventually arranged to have him go for detoxification. Kim remained in contact with him but also started to see other men.”

Seinfeld then described how Kim gradually focused more and more on her own goals and independence, and became less dependent and close to Seinfeld as she had been at the height of the therapeutic symbiotic phase. Thus she transferred into a more “resolution of symbiosis”-like phase, as described in Article #10.


Comments on Seinfeld’s Case of Kim

In this case study, one can see how in the early phases of treatment, Kim was at first oblivious to Seinfeld as a potential helper, due to the extreme neglect and abuse she experienced as a child which left her with a structural deficit of positive internal self and object images. She literally could not recognize help and love when she saw them.

As she gradually became aware of Seinfeld as a potentially helpful therapist, her fear that he might reject her like her parents had done, as well as her general unfamiliarity with and distrust of genuinely kind people, caused her to distance herself from him as a potential good object. It required painstaking work to become aware of how she herself continually viewed others (and later Seinfeld) as “all-bad” while rejecting the good aspects of the outside world in order to overcome this phase.

Eventually, the therapeutic symbiosis took over, and Kim was able to trust Seinfeld and take in his love and support. At this point, she was no longer “borderline”, and began to feel well and stable much of the time. She resumed school and work, developed new positive relationships with other men, and gained a healthy capacity to view people like her mother and abusive boyfriend as troubled people rather than persecutory rejectors.

In reading this article, I learned how important it is to identify the subtle ways in which we distort others into “all-bad” and “all-good”, when we are borderline. We can apply these case examples our own lives, since we all distort external reality to a greater or lesser degree. Since they are often based unrealistic projections from past negative relationships, learning to “distrust” or question our initial negative perceptions can be a positive, corrective process. It allows us to realize how the world outside is much more positive than it sometimes appears when we are viewing things through the lenses of “bad objects.”

Seinfeld As An Author

Seinfeld is one of those authors I read about a certain topic and say, “Wow, this guy is brilliant! That really is how things are!” I remember being struck right away by his penetrating descriptions of borderline problems and what was necessary to transform them. The reader is again recommended to his book, “The Bad Object”, which is available used on Amazon. Its case studies of successfully treated borderlines are some of the best of any book I’ve read, especially the cases of “Kim” described here, along with similar-length successful cases of “Justine”, “Diane”, “William”, and “Peggy.”

To understand Seinfeld’s concepts, it may again be useful for the reader who is unfamiliar with the psychodynamic explanation of BPD to skim through the following articles:



Seinfeld adapted an object relations theory of trauma, building on theories developed by Ronald Fairbairn working with abused children in the early 20th century. Seinfeld understood how parental neglect and abuse became internalized by the (future borderline) child, and then was constantly replayed in their adult life, causing the borderline symptoms. He adapted the four phases that Harold Searles pioneered with schizophrenic patients, and modified them for use with less-disturbed borderlines. These phases – Out-of-Contact, Ambivalent Symbiosis, Therapeutic Symbiosis, and Individuation – involved “reparenting” the borderline individual so that they learned to love themselves and eventually became able to love other people.

It’s hard to summarize everything else from Seinfeld’s book on how to treat Borderline Personality Disorder (The Bad Object). So, as with the post on Gerald Adler, I will focus on a few key points.

#1: The Concepts of Structural Deficit and Bad-Object Conflict

One of Seinfeld’s foundations for understanding BPD was seeing a borderline individual as having both “a structural deficit of positive self-and-object images” and “bad object conflict.”

What the structural deficit means is that, compared to a healthier or “normal” individual, a borderline has not taken in sufficient positive experiences with the outside world to feel secure psychologically. This results in an inner emptiness or psychic void that makes it harder for the borderline to take in new positive experiences in the present, since they have trouble recognizing them as positive. This is the same concept as Adler’s notion of introjective insufficiency:


In healthier people, who have had much nurturing, love and security in childhood, the high number of past positive memories serve as “receptors” that help them recognize, seek out, and take in new positive experiences. By contrast, the borderline-to-be child usually receives very poor responses to their need for nurturance. Instead of internalizing a sense of love, security, and blessing, the future borderline child is left with an emptiness or longing for love which then becomes repressed. That is the structural deficit as described by Seinfeld and Adler – the quantitative insufficiency of internal positive memories based on a lack of past external positive experiences.

It is the structural deficit that results in the borderline’s being relatively unreceptive to new positive experience. For the adult borderline, positive experience – for example, being offered friendship, acceptance, and interest by other people – will seem unfamiliar, strange, alien, and even threatening when they are encountered. This is why, early on in the therapeutic process, Seinfeld found that severely borderline patients often didn’t know how to relate to him in a positive way. Rather, they experienced him in his helping role as, “an alien creature from another psychic planet.”

#2: Bad Object Conflict

As for “bad object conflict”, Seinfeld understood this to mean that not only is there a lack of positive memories, but there is a predominance of powerful negative memories (or images of oneself and other people) in the borderline’s mind. These scary, traumatic negative memories don’t just sit there – they act to reject the internalization of new positive memories. They are like metaphorical demons or monsters that scare the patient away from trusting others.

The child who becomes borderline internalizes many memories of being unloved, rejected, and even hated by inadequate parents. These memories collectively form the unconscious “internal bad object” or “rejecting object.” Despite its painful nature, relating to a rejecting other as an adult often feels safer and more familiar than trusting someone new who might prove disappointing. Also, the borderline tends to feel a perverse loyalty toward the people who abused him in the past, and to feel he is “bad” and therefore unworthy of help from good people.

For both these reasons – fear of being vulnerable toward good people, and loyalty toward the bad people from the past – the borderline individual tends to reject potential help and remains attached to the image of themselves as a worthless, undeserving, bad person. This can be acted out in many ways – via remaining alone and isolated, via abusive or neglectful relationships with present-day partners, via staying attached to the original abusive parents in the present day, via self-injurious acting-out behaviors, and so on.

Therefore, Seinfeld described how the borderline acts in subtle and overt ways to actively maintain an internal negative view of themselves and others. I would call this, “Perpetuating the past in the present.” The bad-object conflict thereby works in a vicious cycle to maintain the “structural deficit” because as long as the activities focused around bad perceptions of oneself and others predominate, quantitatively speaking, then new positive experiences are not being taken in in sufficient amounts to “tip the balance” and effect lasting psychic change.

Seinfeld likened the negative and positive relationships of a borderline patient (as long as they remain borderline) to a mathematical equation. In his formula, negative relationships to external others are activated more frequently than positive relationships, maintaining the attachment to the internal bad object and preventing the internalization of a good set of self-and-object images strong enough to displace the bad object.

According to Seinfeld, unawareness of the good object (“object” meaning person or people) tends to occur more in the out-of-contact phase, and active rejection tends to occur more in the ambivalently symbiotic phase, as described in post #10 on the Four Phases. Active rejection is necessary in the ambivalent symbiotic phase, because the good-object images are strong enough in that phase to pose a threat to the internalized bad object, which the patient unconsciously fears losing (since it is what he is familiar with).

#3: The Exciting Object

Another key concept from Seinfeld’s writing is the nonhuman exciting object. The exciting object is any addictive, stimulating, non-human object that serves to fill the void created by the lack of the good object. Food, drugs, sex, alcohol, medications, excessive use of TV or internet, and other nonhuman “things” can provide an addictive fix to compensate for the lack of love that a borderline feels.

The exciting object is part of Seinfeld’s mathematical equation of how BPD works. Because of the structural deficit and the bad object conflict, the all-negative split self and object units are mostly dominant in the borderline’s mind. These all-negative images reject the taking in of new positive experience which could be soothing, and therefore the borderline feels mostly empty, unhappy, and unstable emotionally.

To try to assuage these bad feelings, the borderline turns to nonhuman exciting objects as described above. These exciting objects plug the “hole” or emptiness created by the lack of truly satisfying positive relationships to good people in the outside world. However, exciting objects can only do so temporarily, since they are not truly satisfying long-term. Once their effect wears off, frustration will set in, and the borderline will usually return to involvement with the bad self and object images. This will then lead to more psychic pain around bad objects, resulting in the need for more exciting objects to assuage it, and so on.

#4: Interrupting the Rejecting-Exciting Object Cycle – Therapeutic Symbiosis

The main focus of Seinfeld’s book was not on the negative aspects of how a borderline functions, but on how to heal them. Seinfeld believed this could be done by interrupting the constant oscillation between rejecting and exciting objects via the internalization of a new good object relationship.

In normal language, the borderline needs to overcome their fear of trust and dependence, allowing themselves to develop a satisfying, loving relationship with the therapist. Seinfeld emphasized that successful therapy must move beyond a detached, professional relationship, and should explicitly involve love and closeness between patient and therapist. This does not mean that the pair are friends outside the sessions; rather, it means that a parental-like relationship of vulnerability, tenderness, and support is nurtured within the frame of the sessions.

This is the phase of therapeutic symbiosis. Seinfeld described how, “In this phase, there is a full reemergence of the vulnerable, regressive true self, in the care and protection of the idealized holding-therapist… At first, the patient’s vulnerable self is increasingly related to the therapist as holding object. The Internal positive self and object representation unit is increasingly dominant over the negative self and object representation unit, as long as the external therapist is highly available to reinforce the strengthening of the positive unit… As one patient said, “So long as everything is all right between you and me, I feel that all is well with the world. The good internal object serves to neutralize the bad, persecutory, rejecting object….

“In the later part of therapeutic symbiosis, the patient internalizes and identifies with the therapist to the point at which he is no longer so dependent upon the external therapist… The patient can now increasingly comfort, soothe, and mirror himself, regulating his own affect, mood, and self-esteem. In unconscious fantasy, he is now the comforter, sympathizer, and holder, as well as the comforted, empathized with, and held… All goodness is taken into the self; all badness is projected into the external object world…. In this way, the patient can establish a psychic foundation (of primarily positive self and object images) to eventually integrate the good and bad self and object units into whole, or ambivalently experienced, self and object images.” (pages 73-74)

Seinfeld’s Model of BPD – The Inversion of the Normative Developmental Psychic Process

Seinfeld continues, “The healthy child tries to take in or internalize the good object and reject or externalize the bad object. In the model I’m developing, the borderline patient manifests an inversion of the normative developmental process. Instead of taking in the positive object relations unit and rejecting the negative object relations unit, he takes in the negative object relations unit and rejects the positive object relations unit. In Fairbairn’s terms, he is attached to the internal bad object. The out-of-contact phase and ambivalent symbiosis are manifestations of the pathological inverted symbiosis in terms of the attachment to the bad object and rejection of the good object. Symbiosis becomes therapeutic when the patient adopts the normative but primitive developmental position of taking in all that is good and rejecting all that is bad. In this way, the patient can establish a psychic foundation to eventually integrate the good and bad object relations unit.” (page 75)

To me, this is a beautifully clear model of what causes BPD – bad relationships are taken in during development and reenacted continuously during adulthood, whereas good relationships are not taken in and are rejected later on. Successful recovery from BPD involves an reversal of this process.

Through the phase of therapeutic symbiosis, the patient can gradually gain confidence and make progress in three main areas in their outside life: 1) Leaving behind negative relationships (for example, to abusive partners, friends, or parents), 2) Developing new positive friendships and relationships to replace the bad ones, and 3) Developing enhanced autonomous functioning, work and interests.

In this way, the formerly borderline patient reverses the mathematical equation that had predominated when they were “borderline.” Instead of remaining attached to the all-negative images of themselves and others, the patient engages in new relationships and activities that are good, encouraging and self-supporting. In this way they take in a quantitative predominance of positive self-and-object images, and “spit out” the bad self and object images.

How To Interrupt the Rejecting-Exciting Object Cycle – Insight

The reader is probably interested as to how a borderline may start to break out of the negative-exciting object attachments. What Seinfeld worked on in therapy (and what one can work on with oneself) is developing the insight into how one sabotages oneself, which allows one to start making more constructive and adaptive choices instead.

Attachments to bad objects from the past are like schemas or relationship-templates that one replays over and over in the present “perpetuating the past in the present”), even though one doesn’t have to keep doing so. A person needs to identify how they are replaying bad relationships in the present, and treating themselves in the way that their parents did, to begin realizing how their behavior could change. As they become aware of the structural deficit (of positive self and other representations, resulting in unreceptivity toward good experience), and of the bad object conflict (which actively rejects and causes a person to fear good relationships), the borderline can start to actively seek out better experiences.

A great way to illustrate how this process works is via a case example. Hopefully, in the case of Kim above, the reader should be able to identify the structural deficit, bad object-conflict, use of exciting objects, and the ways in which Seinfeld interrupted these activities and nurtured insight in the patient, to encourage internalization of the therapist as a good object.

Recovery as a Mythic Journey

Lastly, I loved Seinfeld’s view of the therapy process as a mythic or epic journey. Seinfeld states (page ix), “This volume shows how to help the patient overcome what has been decribed as the most serious obstacle to psychotherapy: the negative therapeutic reaction. It is the bad object that is predominantly responsible for this reaction. The patient and therapist enduring the travails of the therapeutic journey often resemble Odysseus and his crew forced to outwit the demons, sirens, witches, and Cyclops threatening to thwart the long voyage. In fact, those mythological demons personify the manifold masks of the bad object often described as exciting (but not satisfying), enticing, bewitching, addicting, engulfing, rejecting , punishing, and persecuting…

“The bad object is comprised of the actual negative attributes of the parental figures – often a composite of both mother and father along with later figures resembling them – and the child’s fantasies and distortions about these figures. In this regard, the unsatisfactory experiences with the parental figures give rise to frustration and anger, which color the child’s perception of the object… The designation “bad” regarding the other person does not refer to a moral valuation but rather to the child’s subjective unsatisfactory experience with it… Therapeutic progress threatens the patient and therapist with the terrible wrath of the bad object. The patient is conflicted between his loyalty and fear of the bad object and the longing to enter into a good object relationship that will promote separation from the bad object… Fairbairn believed that the term “salvation” was a more apt designation than that of “cure” for the patient’s subjective experience of his need to be rescued from the bad object.” (preface page x)

This article is getting long enough already! I hope the reader, whether having borderline traits themselves, or wanting to help or understand someone with BPD, has found some interesting insights in Seinfeld’s approach to treating Borderline Personality Disorder.

Lastly, here is an interview and memoriam for Jeffrey Seinfeld, who sadly passed away a few years ago.


Please share any comments you have below!


I welcome any correspondance at bpdtransformation@gmail.com

If you are struggling with BPD yourself or are trying to help a borderline individual, I would be happy to listen to your story and provide feedback if possible. Feel free to provide constructive criticism of this site also.

This article is the opinion of a non-professional layperson, and should not be taken as medical advice or as the view of a therapist who is professionally qualified to treat Borderline Personality Disorder or any other mental health condition. Readers should consult with a qualified mental health professional before undertaking any treatment.

– Edward Dantes


#15 – Heroes of BPD: Gerald Adler

Here is the front and back cover of the book I’m about to discuss:




Heroes of BPD: Gerald Adler

Several years ago, when I feared that full recovery from BPD was impossible, my therapist recommended me to read Gerald Adler’s book Borderline Psychopathology and Its Treatment.

Now in his mid-80’s, Adler had earned a reputation as one of the best psychodynamic theorists writing about Borderline Personality Disorder. In the early 1990s, Adler visited the Washington School of Psychiatry to give a talk which my old therapist attended.

What impressed my therapist most was not Adler’s knowledge or clinical skill, but his compassion and goodwill. Out of all the speakers she remembers, only Adler stayed two extra hours to answer questions from junior therapists.

I have met Adler in Boston and spoken to him via phone and Skype five other times. He engaged my fears about BPD compassionately yet forcefully. He had a wonderful quality of being active in directly addressing what was bothering you, but in a manner that felt supportive not intrusive. He reached me even though I was regressed and depressed at the time.

In this article, I’ll discuss some of the key theoretical views of Gerald Adler on Borderline Personality Disorder. Get ready to learn from a master!

The Primacy of Introjective Insufficiency

First, I would like to quote some of Adler’s views on the importance of borderlines’ lack of positive relational experience.

Several decades ago, psychodynamic writers debated about whether inability to tolerate ambivalence – i.e. to see people and oneself as good and bad simultaneously – was the primary problem for borderlines, or whether the main issue was an earlier failure of nurturing which led secondarily to the inability to tolerate ambivalence. Here is Adler’s position (from Borderline Psychopathology and Its Treatment, pages 10-12):


“In the ambivalence theory account of borderline functioning, introjective insufficiency results from an inability to tolerate ambivalence toward the whole object. But my own clinical experience suggests the utility of a different theoretical approach.

If the primary issue for borderline patients were the need to keep apart introjects of contrasting affective coloration, then there must already have been substantial solid development of positive introjects around which the self is organized. While ambivalence toward the whole object may then lead to a lack of self-cohesiveness, it would not issue in the felt threat of annihilation.

Only a theory that views insufficiency as primary – and not merely a secondary or reactive expression of ambivalence – can fully account for the borderline patient’s “annihilation panic” in regression. In other words, only a primary inner emptiness, based on a relative absence of positive introjects around which the self is organized , can adequately explain the borderline patient’s vulnerability to feeling that his very self is at risk.”

Explanation of Adler’s View on Introjective Insufficiency

This might seem confusing. Very simply, Adler is saying that the primary problem for borderlines is not their all-good all-bad splitting – which is a symptom – but rather their lack of sufficient positive introjects, which is the underlying cause of their psychopathology.

By “introject”, Adler refers to an internalized mental representation of another person and the way they make us feel. “Positive introjects” are comforting, supportive representations of other people, for example those of caring parents. A healthy child develops solid, reliable positive introjects to soothe itself based on mostly good experiences with its parents. Such a child can use “evocative memory” to comfort itself by remembering how good relationships feel even when the external person is not physically present.

“Negative introjects” are persecutory, hurtful memories, for example those with neglectful and abusive parents. Negative introjects predominate in the minds of future borderline children. A relative deficit of positive introjects, whch are outnumbered by negative persecutory introjects, causes borderline psychopathology in Adler’s model

“Introjective insufficiency” means a lack of sufficient positive introjects to comfort oneself. It is this introjective insufficiency that results in the feelings of emptiness, panic, and fear that borderlines often experience.  In stressful situations, the lack of positive introjects leads borderlines to feel that their very psychological being is under threat.

That is what Adler means when he discusses “annihilation panic”. In a healthier person, stress would be challenging – i.e. it would affect their “self-cohesiveness” and make them feel “not like themselves” – but it would not make them feel that their psychological being was threatened.

However, with borderline individuals who have had little positive nurturance growing up, and whose positive introjects and self-comforting are therefore tenuous, emotional stress leads to the feeling that they may be destroyed psychologically. In Adler’s view, the strength and frequency of this phenomenon supports the idea that a lack of positive introjects is primary for borderlines, and that inability to tolerate ambivalence is secondarily based on this deficit.

As humans we need positive relationships, and positive introjects derived from them, for our psychological survival and well-being. Positive introjects serve the mind the same way oxygen serves the body. When they are weak, we feel existentially threatened, like a mountain climber running short of oxygen.

Adler’ view of BPD is a “deficit” model – he focuses on what is missing in a person’s psychological development, and on what is needed to remedy the deficit. Other therapists focus more on “conflict”, i.e. what conflicts associated with “bad” relationships block the borderline’s psychological development. These approaches are complementary and could be considered sides of the same coin.

Adler’s View on the Cause of Borderline Personality Disorder

(from pages 20-23)

“The fundamental psychopathology of the borderline personality is in the nature of developmental failure: Adult borderline patients have not achieved solid evocative memory in the area of object relations and are prone to regress in this area to recognition memory or earlier stages when faced with certain stresses. The result is relative failure to develop internal resources for holding-soothing security adequate to meet the needs of adult life.

To repeat, the formation of holding introjects – of both past and present figures – is quantitatively inadequate, and those that have formed are unstable, being subject to regressive loss of function. The developmental failure appears to result from mothering that is not good-enough during the phases of separation-individuation. Although the young person is ready for the neuro-psychological development of memory needed to form holding-soothing representations and introjects, the environment does not facilitate it.”


Discussion of Adler’s View on the Cause of BPD

Adler’s point is that parental support is usually lacking in the histories of children who become borderline, and that lack of support leaves them unable to comfort themselves as adults. According to Adler, future borderline children are psychologically capable of developing self-soothing capacity, but they experience too much neglect and/or abuse to allow for it. Adler noted that in virtually every case of BPD he treated (comprising dozens of borderline patients over a 40-50 year career), the borderline patient reported significant neglect or abuse in their childhood.

I believe that genetic strength or weakness is a factor too. However, I place less much value on this aspect BPD’s etiology than genetic researchers, most of whom, unlike Adler, have never worked with borderlines in depth. In my view, the dynamic interaction of the environment with the individual generates borderline symptoms. The prevalence of neglect and abuse reported by borderlines underscores the crucial importance of human relationships in causing borderline symptoms. This issue is elaborated on here:


Adler also discusses how positive introjects are “quantitatively inadequate” in BPD. This is a critical concept. Borderlines simply do not have enough positive experience with the outside world to be able to comfort themselves or to tolerate ambivalence. The main problem that causes all other borderlines symptoms is borderlines’ relative lack of positive experience with other people (and the associated lack of positive memories/introjects). This concept of the relative balance of positive and negative self-and-object units is discussed further here:


Adler’s Three Phases of BPD Treatment

In an earlier article, I described Searles and Seinfeld’s four phases of treatment for BPD. Adler has a related model comprising three phrases. Here I’ll quote the way Adler describes these phases at length. I have slightly paraphrased some areas to make them more accessible, while keeping the meaning intact.

Phase 1: Phase I: Inadequate and Unstable Holding Introjects

Here is Adler’s description of Phase 1, from Borderline Psychopathology and Its Treatment, pages 49-53. It has been shortened and sometimes paraphrased for clarification:


“The primary aim of treatment in the first phase is to establish and maintain a dyadic therapeutic relationship in which the therapist can be steadily used over time by the patient as a holding selfobject. This situation makes it possible for the patient to develop insight into the nature and basis of his aloneness, and to acquire a solid evocative memory of the therapist as sustainable holder, which in turn serves as a substrate out of which can be formed adequate holding introjects. That is, developmental processes that were at one time arrested are now set in motion to correct the original failure.

This process would simply require a period of time for its occurrence were it not for certain psychodynamic obstacles that block it in therapy just as they block it in life… The inevitability of rage is one such corollary that interferes with the process of forming holding introjects. This rage has three sources…
1) Holding is never enough to meet the felt need to assuage aloneness, which enrages the patient. The patient expects to lose the therapist through the therapist’s responding to his rage by turning from “good” to “bad”.
2) The holding selfobject that does not meet the need is not only the target for direct rage but is also distorted by means of projection of hostile introjects… The inevitable result of this projection is the loss of the good holding object.
3) The object that is so endowed with holding sustenance is deeply envied by the needy borderline patient. This envy necessarily involves hateful destructive impulses.

Any of these sources of rage can lead to transient loss of holding introjects. At such times the patient is subject to the terrifying feeling that the therapist has ceased to exist.

There is yet one more impediment to the use of the therapist as a holding selfobject. It is a primitive, guilt-related experience that involves the belief by the patient that he is undeserving of the therapist’s help because of his evilness. In extreme situations this guilt can lead to suicide attempts.

Acquiring insight into and working through these challenges are necessary in order for the borderline patient to develop a stable evocative memory for the therapist as holding sustainer. Each of these impediments must be worked through in the standard ways as it manifests in transference, through use of the therapeutic maneuvers of clarification, confrontation, and interpretation. The amount of support required may considerably exceed that involved in most psychotherapies.

The outcome of the work is this: The patient learns that the therapist is an enduring and reliable holding selfobject, that the therapist is indestructible as a “good object”, that holding closeness poses no dangers, and that the patient himself is not evil. Hope is aroused that the relationship and the therapeutic work, involving understanding of object and selfobject transferences plus genetic reconstructions, will open the way for psychological development and relief.

The healing of longstanding splitting of the type Kernberg describes must await the formation of stable holding introjects. Efforts to bring together the positive and negative sides of the split can be therapeutic only after development of more stable holding introjects along with correction of distorting projections that have acted to intensify the negative side of the split.


Discussion of Phase I

Some of the technical terminology might be confusing. By “holding” Adler means the comforting psychological aspect of a relationship, not literal physical holding. “Holding” is a primary psychological element of any deep friendship, love relationship, or therapeutic alliance.

The “selfobject” is a term referring to the way the therapist is experienced as a comforting person or “good parent” by the patient. It describes how the patient experiences the therapist as serving their emotional needs, without fully realizing that the therapist is a separate person psychologically. That is why there is no space between “self” and “object” as written. It was invented by Heinz Kohut who wrote about its value to narcissistic patients.

Adler’s main points are that the borderline needs a new, positive relationship to grow psychologically, and that emotional resistances to forming that relationship must be confronted and removed. Borderline individuals reading this can probably agree that rage, fear, and guilt create obstacles to forming a positive relationship in therapy.

In the book, Adler details how the resistances to forming a positive new relationship to the therapist – i.e. rage about the imperfections of the therapist, envy of the therapist, fear of closeness, guilt – must be directly interpreted and confronted to allow the patient to internalize the therapist as a positive new object. This is a lengthy, gradual process taking many months and sometimes years.

Adler’s last paragraph is important – about how splitting cannot be resolved until a stronger positive relationship between patient and therapist exists (with correspondingly stronger positive introjects in the patient). In my early attempts at recovery, I worked on seeing things in a less black and white way. I had little to no success.

I eventually gave up and focused on building a positive relationship to my therapist, and also to my family and new friends. Eventually, the process of resolving splitting happened naturally a few years later, once more positive relationships were in place. My experience confirmed Adler’s view that correction of splitting must await the development of more stable positive relationships/introjects.

Adler also notes the importance of correcting “distorting projections that have acted to intensify the negative side of the split”. I learned much from this insight. What it means is that overly negative, distorted beliefs about the external world serve to prevent borderlines from seeing themselves and others ambivalently. It is necessary to “extract” these negative beliefs and correct them into views that are more realistic and balanced. This sets the stage for ambivalence rather than splitting.

In my case, I had various distorted views of the external world, for example:
1) That everyone thought I was ugly.
2) That women would not want to date me if they knew of my sexual inexperience.
3) That most therapists agreed that BPD was untreatable.
4) That therapists couldn’t be trusted and only cared about money.

I thought and acted as if people actually believed these things. It was necessary to correct these beliefs in order to view other people and myself realistically.

I liken the process of confronting such “distorted projections” to that of cleaning an infected wound. As long as the pus remains inside the wound, it festers, hurts, and may get worse. Draining the infected area is painful, but ultimately brings relief and allows for healing. Likewise, confronting painful, guilt-laden beliefs is uncomfortable, but ultimately freeing, promoting the development of a more realistic view of the world.

Lastly, Adler’s entire Phase 1 can be compared to Phases 1 and 2 (Out-of-Contact and Ambivalent phases) plus the early part of phase 3 (Therapeutic Symbiosis) in Jeffrey Seinfeld’s conception of BPD treatment, described here:


Phase 2: The Idealized Holding Therapist and Introjects

Next, Adler describes the phase of treatment after the borderline has developed a stable positive relationship to the therapist. From pages 58-60:


“In general the holding introjects established in phase I are considerably unrealistic; they are idealized in a childlike fashion. Were treatment to stop here, the situation would be quite unstable, for two reasons. First, the unrealistic idealization of the holding introjects (based on the therapist), along with the projections of them onto persons (in the patient’s external life) who serve as holding selfobjects, would eventually be confronted by reality and would inevitably break down.

Second, at this point the patient is still heavily dependent on a continuing relationship with holding self-objects (including the therapist), as well as holding introjects, for an ongoing sense of security; this is not a viable setup for adult life, in which selfobjects cannot realistically be consistently available, and must over the years be lost in considerable number.

The therapeutic work in phase II parallels that described by Kohut in treating narcissistic personalities. Kohut describes the therapeutic process as “optimal disillusionment”. No direct interventions are required. The realities of the therapist’s interactions with the patient and the basic reality orientation of the patient always lead to the patient’s noticing discrepancies between the idealizing holding introject, based on the therapist and reflected in the transference, and the actual holding qualities of the therapist.

Each episode of awareness of discrepancy occasions disappointment, sadness, and anger. If each episode of disappointment is not too great, that is, is optimal, a series of episodes will ensue in which insight is developed and unrealistic idealization is worked through and relinquished. (Any disappointments that are greater than optimal precipitate recurrence of aloneness and rage in a transient regression that resembles phase I).

Ultimately the therapist as holding self-object is accepted as he realistically is: An interested, caring person who in the context of a professional relationship does all that he appropriately can to help he patient resolves conflicts and achieve mature capacities. Holding introjects come to be modified accordingly.”


Discussion of Phase II

Here, Adler describes the progression that can occur after a stable, trusting relationship has been achieved in therapy. His main point is that, due to their childlike needs for dependence and support, borderlines tend to unrealistically idealize the therapist and view him as perfect during phase I, and that this idealization must eventually be made more more realistic in phase II. The introjects (mental representations) of the therapist that borderlines develop to comfort themselves are correspondingly unrealistic, and prone to breakdown under stress when others do not treat them perfectly.

To deal with this issue, Adler describes how the patient must gradually realize that the therapist is not a perfect parent, but is an actual therapist who is nevertheless sincerely interested in the patient. If the patient can come to see the therapist more realistically, as both good and bad, this carries over to relationships in the outside world. This intrapsychic progress helps the patient to be less sensitive to failures in empathy from other people, who will inevitably disappoint the patient from time to time. This process should occur gradually, so that the patient is not confronted too suddenly with the reality that his earlier idealizations were unrealistic.

In my view, the harder work, and in a way the more fundamental work, is what Adler describes in phase I. It is the work of Phase I – building a positive, trusting relationship and fully relaizing that one is not a bad person – that makes one no longer borderline. The work of phase II is also important, albeit easier. It is like building a base camp on a safe island (phase II) that one has reached after being shipwrecked and having to swim to shore in  a stormy ocean (phase I).

Adler’s phase II can be compared to the later part of Seinfeld’s phase 3 and the early part of his phase 4.

Phase III: Superego Maturation and Formation of Sustaining Identifications

Lastly, Adler describes a late phase in which the former borderline makes further progress:


“To become optimally autonomous – that is, self-sufficient – in regard to secure holding and a sense of worth requires two developments: (1) A superego must be established that is not inappropriately harsh and that readily serves as a source of a realistically deserved sense of worth. 2) The ego must develop the capacity for pleasurable confidence in the self and for directing love toward itself that is of an affectionate nature. This development of the capacity to love the self contributes not only to enjoyment of being one’s self but also makes possible a reaction of genuine sadness in the face of losses that involve the self – accident, disease, aging, approaching death.

The therapeutic endeavors in phase III are based on the principle that capacities to know, esteem, and love oneself can be developed only when there is adequate experience of being known, esteemed, and loved by significant others.

Often, (formerly borderline) patients require help to gain the capacity to experience subjectively the factualness (validity) of their esteemable qualities, as well as the capacity to experience feelings of self-esteem.

In this phase of treatment, the ego evolves as its own resource for pride and holding through development of intrasystemic resources that are experienced as one part providing to another, both parts being felt as the self. These ego functions are developed through identifications with the homologous functioning of the therapist as a selfobject. That is, the therapist, verbally at times, but largely nonverbally, actually does provide the patient with a holding function, a function of loving in the affectionate mode of object love, a function of validating the patient’s competencies, and a function of enjoying the exercise and fruits of the patient’s competencies.

The experiential qualities of these newly gained ego functions might be expressed as follows:

1)      “I sustain myself with a sense of holding-soothing,”
2) “I love myself in the same way I love others, that is, affectionately, for the qualities inherent in me,”
3) “I trust my competence in managing and using my psychological self and in perceiving and interrelating with the external world, hence I feel secure in my own hands,” and
4) “I enjoy knowing that I am competent and exercising my competence”

Total self-sufficiency is, of course, impossible. For its healthy functioning, the ego requires interaction with the other agencies of the mind as well as with the external world, and no one totally relinquishes use of others as selfobject resources for holding and self-worth, nor does anyone relinquish using selected parts of the environment (art, music, and so forth) as transitional objects. These dependencies are the guarantees of much of the ongoing richness of life.

It is only through the developmental acquisitions of phase III that the former borderline personality acquires genuine psychological stability.”


Discussion of Phase III

In this passage, Adler’s compassion and positive outlook on human nature can be observed. Psychodynamic therapy is often criticized for over-focusing on what is wrong or pathological. Adler stands out in that he emphasizes what needs to go right in healthy emotional development.

In this phase, Adler describes how former borderlines can learn to love themselves affectionately and enjoy being themselves. He explains how crucial it is to feel loved and appreciated by others before a person can reciprocally do that for themselves. This phase could be compared to the later part of phase IV (Resolution of the Symbiosis) in Seinfeld’s phases.

To me, what Adler says here is self-explanatory and obvious. However, I expect that many people will be surprised to read such positive language about BPD. The public remains largely unaware that borderlines can become fully non-borderline, living normal lives in which they enjoy themselves. You don’t find this in the DSM!


Adler’s View on the Validity of the BPD Diagnosis

During my contacts with Adler, I had a chance to ask him if he considered Borderline Personality Disorder a valid diagnosis. He answered that his main concern was helping people get better, and that he thought very little about diagnosis. He said that giving someone a diagnosis doesn’t tell you much about them, and that understanding their individual history and current problems is much more useful.

I pressed him to say something more about the BPD diagnosis. Adler said that he thinks it is useful for insurance reimbursement purposes, but not much else. Adler added that he sometimes wishes that the word “borderline” had never existed. He agreed with me that diagnoses like BPD have not been scientifically proven to be valid, but said it doesn’t really matter.

Adler added that he doesn’t view BPD as a fixed diagnosis, but rather as a subjective area along a continuum or spectrum of personality / emotional development. He defines BPD via the patient’s ego development – for example, by the relative presence or lack of self-soothing capacity, and by the degree of splitting – not by the other symptoms in the DSM. Adler joked that the DSM gets updated every few years to torture people like him who have to learn new diagnostic codes for insurance reimbursement.

The high and low points of the BPD diagnosis are discussed more here:


Adler’s View on the Curability of BPD

On one of our phonecalls, I asked Adler if he thought BPD is cureable. He answered that “cure” is not the right word for BPD, since it implies the removal of a medical or physical condition, and connotes an idealized state where no problems remain.

But Adler did tell me that the majority of the borderlines he treated improved dramatically, and that many are no longer remotely borderline. He said he has worked with many former borderlines who have “largely worked it out and live good lives.” He emphasized that he was still very optimistic about borderlines doing well in long-term intensive therapy. Adler added that people in general are not “cured” in therapy. Rather, he said that no person becomes perfectly well or free from life’s challenges, but they can become better enough to live well.

Concluding Thoughts

There is much more in Adler’s book that cannot be discussed in the space here. For those interested, Adler’s book discusses  the therapeutic alliance, how to handle borderline acting out, BPD’s relation to narcissistic personality and schizophrenia, the positive aspects of regression, hospital management, etc.

Two points will suffice to conclude this entry. The first is to reemphasize the importance of educating oneself about Borderline Personality Disorder. Understanding BPD psychodynamically gave me an advantage in planning my recovery and in understanding myself.

Borderline Psychopathology and Its Treatment was among the first of dozens of books I’ve read about BPD. Despite its age, its formulations are relevant to borderlines and their therapy today. Adler’s viewpoint on deficits in self-soothing capacity and positive introjects are not the only way I conceptualize BPD, but they are important.

The second is to remain skeptical. I do not agree 100% with Adler’s views. For example, I think he focused insufficiently on conflict (versus deficit) and on how internal bad objects operate in the mind of a borderline to actively block new positive relationships. Jeffrey Seinfeld and others write better on this topic. However, I get more than enough out of his work to like it and find it useful. That is the way to handle writings about BPD – take what is useful from them, and leave the rest.

I hope you, the reader, don’t blindly accept everything I say either. Although I know that BPD can be recovered from, I am not perfectly informed about nor do I have all the answers for BPD. Therefore, I encourage people to read widely about BPD online and offline, and to accept what feels right to them. Nevertheless, I hope people will benefit from reading some of Gerald Adler’s views on the condition. He is a great person, and I will miss him when he’s gone.