I have BPD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mickeymouse93

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
37
Reaction score
2
Points
4,551
  1. Psychology Student
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I was recently diagnosed with BPD and am planning to become a clinical psychologist. My father is NPD, so I would like to find a treatment for that and write a book about everything I've went through. I feel like my disorder has helped me with my career because I've been obsessed with psychology ever since my junior year of high school. I'm prepared to be stigmatized, but it's okay because we all know that a borderline discovered DBT. However, I have not met any other psychology students/professionals with this disorder. So if you have it and are studying/plan to study psychology, please let me know so we can talk. Thanks! 🙂
 
I do not think anyone here is going to stigmatize you. Also, since this is a professional board, most people will not offer treatment advice for you or your father - I think it is part of the rules. As far as asking for others experiences with BPD while being in graduate school, I suppose that is fine. Though, like you mentioned, it is not very common for graduate students in Psychology to have. Therefore, you may not find what you are looking for.

I think you already know this, but it will be very hard to progress in this field without a lot of therapy. It will be hard even with therapy. I will self-disclose that I have NPD and even after several years of continuous therapy, it is still a struggle. For me, the narcissism will never be completely gone - the thoughts will always linger. An awareness and management of my thoughts is the best that I can hope for.

I cannot speak for BPD, but obviously it is possible to have a major diagnosis and be a therapist of some sort. Whether or not it is a good idea is left to debate. My only advice is, if you get far enough, to not treat someone with your own disorder. Meaning, I know my limitations and I do not treat anyone with NPD, or even BPD because my mom and ex-wife has it (Family System theorists will have a fun time with that).

Bottom line - talk to your therapist about this.
 
Meaning, I know my limitations and I do not treat anyone with NPD, or even BPD because my mom and ex-wife has it (Family System theorists will have a fun time with that).

Psychoanalysts will too 😉.

I'm neither a psychoanalyst nor a family systems expert, though, so I got nothing.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was going to be a thread about bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and was terribly confused how that related to becoming a psychologist.

I doubt you'll be stigmatized. Everyone has their issues, after all.
 
My father is NPD, so I would like to find a treatment for that and write a book about everything I've went through.

Hey there. I agree with PsychBiker...kudos for you for choosing this path. I would just suggest you stay in long-term psychodynamic/gestalt/attachment-focused therapy. These therapies can help a lot, but require significant time commitment (many, many years).

Also, it sounds like from the above quote you're hoping to help treat or cure your father via your studies. This statement seems like a red flag to me. Understand that you're unlikely to help your father change. If he is ready or wanting to change, that's his own choice. Your studies are unlikely to impact his NPD.
 
I agree with Mad Jack. I believe those of us who are looking to be in this field fit this statement to the T: We're all wounded healers in some way. I think our personal tragedies can be lead us into our greatest achievements.

But I also believe that using personal issues to steer your career can be dangerous. Someone once told me to think of it this way: Do you want the possibility of waking up one day 20 years from now wishing you had chose a career that doesn't center around your past and pain?

I think you should do what you're passionate about but always give yourself the option to change your focus on different areas in psychology that doesn't hit home all the time. Maybe specializing in personality disorders AND something else. 😉
 
I'm surprised that people don't think you'll be stigmatized. I think this is an extremely judgmental field, particularly in academia. Marsha Linehan was able to "come out" because she is wildly successful and near the end of her career. Just ask 10 therapists their attitudes toward treating borderline patients. I bet you'll find that the majority of them try to avoid them as much as possible. Certainly never mention it in an interview. I wouldn't even mention your family members diagnoses as the reason you are interested in the field.

It's not right that our field is so judgmental, but it is hat it is and so you need to watch out or yourself.
 
I agree that the field will be much harder to navigate bc of people's own biases, particularly if the person is working in that area. Self-disclosure is a tricky thing during interviews, so I'm not sure I'd mention any of this until after acceptance into a program; particular if it involves Me-Search.

*edit*

Thinking more about this...I'm not sure I'd mention anything at any point. There are far more negatives than positives that could come out of such a disclosure.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised that people don't think you'll be stigmatized. I think this is an extremely judgmental field, particularly in academia. Marsha Linehan was able to "come out" because she is wildly successful and near the end of her career. Just ask 10 therapists their attitudes toward treating borderline patients. I bet you'll find that the majority of them try to avoid them as much as possible. Certainly never mention it in an interview. I wouldn't even mention your family members diagnoses as the reason you are interested in the field.

Yep. I am of the opinion that the right time to reveal your history of mental illness in this field is after you have earned full professorship and also published at least one popular book in the mainstream press. Also, revealing these types of personal reasons for going into the field in interviews or SOP's is regarded as one of the classic "kiss of death" reasons that people don't get in to programs.
 
Yep. I am of the opinion that the right time to reveal your history of mental illness in this field is after you have earned full professorship and also published at least one popular book in the mainstream press. Also, revealing these types of personal reasons for going into the field in interviews or SOP's is regarded as one of the classic "kiss of death" reasons that people don't get in to programs.

What about just saying you've been in therapy before? Is that a "kiss of death?"
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
.
 
Last edited:
Wounded healer is social work not psych.

So you don't think that many who enter in to the psychology field do so because they have a personal connection to mental illness in some way? In my experience (which I admit isn't extensive), it seems to be a somewhat unspoken theme in the field.. Of course most wouldn't make it through to the PhD level with serious mental illness (eg psychotic symptoms, etc), but I would be willing to bet that the rates of anxiety and depressive disorders are quite high.

That being said, I agree that this is a fine line to tread. While many in the field know that this is part of the reason some enter the field, I think there is some stigma. Not of the disorder(s) themselves, but because we are supposed to be concerned with the mental health of our patients, not of ourselves. I think it is safe to say the almost all PI's would look down upon someone trying to get a PhD just to learn more about or cure their own disorder(s) (again, probably rightfully so). I definitely would keep it to yourself and do therapy. I also agree it would be better to find a focus area that isn't as personal as it is a lot harder to look at the scientific evidence objectively when one has their own experiences influencing their reasoning.

On the other hand, and this is kind of my own opinion, I'm sure there are many clinicians that have great insight because of their own issues. Science does advance through observation, and observing first hand may give insights that one could never get from books and journal articles.
 
I think both sides are looking at this in a bit of a biased way. Whatever your true inspirations for going into this field may be, I think they are fine, so long as you are currently mentally stable, thus reducing likleyhood of harming patients, crossing boundaries, and contributing to that nasty attrition statistic. I dont think programs believe that they should discrimnate, per se, against those with MH dx so much as they have a duty to protect the integrity of the program from as much "risk" as possible. Attrition is an ugly prospect that jepordizes program acredidation and....costs MONEY.

Second, honestly folks, who WANTS personality disordered individuals in their work place/office/lab? Uh, Im a psychologist and I'd choose to avoid it if I could. Would you go into a job interview and tell your boss and futue coworkers: "Hey guys, I have Borderline Personality, so sometimes I will cause quite the rucuss. I just want to let all of you know why this may happen, ok." No? Why? Answer that question and then you have the answer to why disclosing this information during the application process is a death kiss.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with erg923, especially with the bit about a duty to protect the program integrity and any potential risks against it.
 
Would you go into a job interview and tell your boss and futue coworkers: "Hey guys, I have Borderline Personality, so sometimes I will cause quite the rucuss. I just want to let all of you know why this may happen, ok." No? Why? Answer that question and then you have the answer to why disclosing this information during the application process is a death kiss.

I think this is really what it boils down to more than "stigma" per se. I don't know many (any?) people in the field who think that individuals who have had mental health issues are bad people or incapable of succeeding in a demanding career. Nearly everyone acknowledges the reality that active mental health concerns can impair one's ability to be effective in a professional environment. Virtually by definition, depression is detrimental to one's motivation, BPD will foster an exceedingly unpleasant work environment for others, etc. so I think due caution is appropriate when it appears problems are ongoing.

RE: wounded healer - I think it depends how you define it. I don't doubt many in the field have a history of mental health issues. Heck, even if we assume its equal to that of the general population that will typically mean 1-2 in every cohort. When I think wounded healer, I picture someone still struggling significantly with their own life and generally practicing based on a "What works for me should work for you" framework, which I firmly believe is detrimental to the field and to patients. If it just refers to someone who had an issue in the past and is now doing well...that's a very different matter.
 
I think this is really what it boils down to more than "stigma" per se. I don't know many (any?) people in the field who think that individuals who have had mental health issues are bad people or incapable of succeeding in a demanding career. Nearly everyone acknowledges the reality that active mental health concerns can impair one's ability to be effective in a professional environment. Virtually by definition, depression is detrimental to one's motivation, BPD will foster an exceedingly unpleasant work environment for others, etc. so I think due caution is appropriate when it appears problems are ongoing.

RE: wounded healer - I think it depends how you define it. I don't doubt many in the field have a history of mental health issues. Heck, even if we assume its equal to that of the general population that will typically mean 1-2 in every cohort. When I think wounded healer, I picture someone still struggling significantly with their own life and generally practicing based on a "What works for me should work for you" framework, which I firmly believe is detrimental to the field and to patients. If it just refers to someone who had an issue in the past and is now doing well...that's a very different matter.

I'm curious to hear more about the "what works for me should work for you framework" you referred to.

From my own experience, my best work has been with clients who have struggled with similar issues I've struggled with. There's something about being able to relate to their experience...

I don't think it's having issues per se that's a problem. But understanding those issues, and how that might impact therapy relationships is absolutely important. I'm at a point in my life where I'm acutely aware of my challenges....but that doesn't mean they just go away.
 
I'm curious to hear more about the "what works for me should work for you framework" you referred to.

Shared experiences (in many forms) can surely help with forming a strong alliance - particularly during the early phases.

I'm more referring to situations where any/all evidence-based practice goes out the window and treatment is based more on what worked for the therapist than on what is most likely to be effective for the client. When I think "wounded healer", that doesn't conjure up an image of someone on top of the scientific literature practicing according to the best available evidence. I picture someone who barely has their own life together enough to make it into the office, doing what is probably closest to supportive therapy and telling others what worked for them. I don't know that there is an established definition for the phrase, that's just how I have always interpreted it. Obviously "mental health" is quite fluid and its important for everyone to stay vigilant about their frame of mind when treating others. "Issues" can mean anything, but there is a big difference between someone who is aware they are slightly less comfortable discussing certain topics that hit close to sore topics from a previous depressive episode and someone who is still cutting/drinking/isolating/unable to focus/etc. trying to tell others what coping strategies seem most effective for them. The former likely describes everyone to one degree or another (if not depression, something else). The latter is not fit to practice as a psychologist at the present time. There is a wide gulf in between them with many shades of grey.
 
Yep. I am of the opinion that the right time to reveal your history of mental illness in this field is after you have earned full professorship and also published at least one popular book in the mainstream press. Also, revealing these types of personal reasons for going into the field in interviews or SOP's is regarded as one of the classic "kiss of death" reasons that people don't get in to programs.


I think it all depends. I do think BPD carried a large stigma, which is unfortunate. But I have worked with several classmates, co-inters and co-fellows that have clear Borderline organization / PD.... they were all smart, well-intended, good clinicians and dealt with issues as they came up. I do think I would be careful to disclose that right away because people will start to go back to their stereotypes about BPD and will look for any information that confirms those stereotypes.... I think the number one thing you can do is obviously continue to seek treatment for yourself, more than for your career or related to your father. The rest will fall into place, academic, career and so on...

I disagree though with revealing personal reasons for going into the field being a total kiss of death. Like someone else said, we all became psychologists for a reason... and it's usually not because everything was totally hunky dory our entire lives ;-) I have found that some supervisors are much more open than others. I was asked why/how I ended up in the field, my motivation for it etc., and I gave pretty much the whole story from A-Z. Though, I will say my story doesn't carry that much intrinsic stigma.... I still got a APA internship and an APPIC postdoc, so it cant be that bad to disclose to a certain extent. I think the KEY is sharing - but with some limits. You don't have to label yourself as Borderline. There IS such a thing as an overshare, however... regardless if it's your diagnosis or trauma or other things going on... and you have to exercise good judgment about what to reveal, when, and how. But, it should not be a black and white, yes/no sort of decision making process (how apropros for BPD).

Supervisors want to know you'll be able to handle stuff on your own, that there isnt going to be drama all the time, and of course that you are in touch with yourself. Ability to talk about what you've been through in a coherent yet 'boundaried' way is never a bad thing. And if it is, big woop - you probably dont want to be at a dry, closed off organization like that anyway!
 
When I think "wounded healer", that doesn't conjure up an image of someone on top of the scientific literature practicing according to the best available evidence. I picture someone who barely has their own life together enough to make it into the office, doing what is probably closest to supportive therapy and telling others what worked for them. I don't know that there is an established definition for the phrase, that's just how I have always interpreted it.

This is just a really horrible misinterpretation of what the phrase is intended to mean. Obviously nobody (I hope!) is encouraging people who barely have their stuff together telling others what to do based on their personal experience of what (barely) works. The "wounded" in "wounded healer" generally refers to past wounds that have been healed, but which inform and drive the clinician to help others, which is best done via the best available evidence.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think it all depends. I do think BPD carried a large stigma, which is unfortunate. But I have worked with several classmates, co-inters and co-fellows that have clear Borderline organization / PD.... they were all smart, well-intended, good clinicians and dealt with issues as they came up. I do think I would be careful to disclose that right away because people will start to go back to their stereotypes about BPD and will look for any information that confirms those stereotypes.... I think the number one thing you can do is obviously continue to seek treatment for yourself, more than for your career or related to your father. The rest will fall into place, academic, career and so on...

I disagree though with revealing personal reasons for going into the field being a total kiss of death. Like someone else said, we all became psychologists for a reason... and it's usually not because everything was totally hunky dory our entire lives ;-) I have found that some supervisors are much more open than others. I was asked why/how I ended up in the field, my motivation for it etc., and I gave pretty much the whole story from A-Z. Though, I will say my story doesn't carry that much intrinsic stigma.... I still got a APA internship and an APPIC postdoc, so it cant be that bad to disclose to a certain extent. I think the KEY is sharing - but with some limits. You don't have to label yourself as Borderline. There IS such a thing as an overshare, however... regardless if it's your diagnosis or trauma or other things going on... and you have to exercise good judgment about what to reveal, when, and how. But, it should not be a black and white, yes/no sort of decision making process (how apropros for BPD).

Well, it is not my opinion but that of many chairs of admissions committees who said that revealing a personal history of mental health issues is a major kiss of death ( http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf ). Your n=1, and I would discourage anybody from revealing any history of mental illness before their career is established; I think there is little to gain if it goes well and a great deal to lose if it does not. Another way I heard it expressed is "you're probably not Temple Grandin." Hey, maybe you personally are just as good as she is at explaining your mental illness and how it has led you to a positive outcome; most people aren't, though.
 
This is just a really horrible misinterpretation of what the phrase is intended to mean. Obviously nobody (I hope!) is encouraging people who barely have their stuff together telling others what to do based on their personal experience of what (barely) works. The "wounded" in "wounded healer" generally refers to past wounds that have been healed, but which inform and drive the clinician to help others, which is best done via the best available evidence.
Well like I said - not aware of any official definition of it, that's just what it always conjured up in my mind. I think Jung coined it originally (?) but things have obviously evolved since that time. Regardless of how we define the term, I think the broader point stands. I don't see many people in the field encouraging those folks to pursue psychology...but I do see many people in that situation who express a desire to pursue clinical training (immediately), identify in that regard and basically express their plans to practice based on the above. We see it here all the time and I've had many students who fit that description too.
 
I disagree though with revealing personal reasons for going into the field being a total kiss of death. Like someone else said, we all became psychologists for a reason... and it's usually not because everything was totally hunky dory our entire lives ;-) I have found that some supervisors are much more open than others. I was asked why/how I ended up in the field, my motivation for it etc., and I gave pretty much the whole story from A-Z. Though, I will say my story doesn't carry that much intrinsic stigma.... I still got a APA internship and an APPIC postdoc, so it cant be that bad to disclose to a certain extent. I think the KEY is sharing - but with some limits. You don't have to label yourself as Borderline. There IS such a thing as an overshare, however... regardless if it's your diagnosis or trauma or other things going on... and you have to exercise good judgment about what to reveal, when, and how. But, it should not be a black and white, yes/no sort of decision making process (how apropros for BPD).

I think the "kiss of death" refers to disclosing personal history of mental illness in a statement of purpose or an internship application essay. I think saying in an essay (presumably to be read by someone who has not yet met you) that you have X disorder, and thus are interested in studying how to best treat X disorder, is probably never a good idea. Dislcosing that type of information to a supervisor/mentor that you have a very good working relationship with is a different story.
 
This whole discussion just reminds me of how important boundaries are and higlights how important the issue of self-disclosure is. I think people conflate "empathy" with inappropriate self-disclosure a lot, when they could be harming their clients by deviating from appropriate interventions in order to insert their own experience into the relationship. We are here for the client and their issue(s), folks, and having strong clinical skills means that you do your best to take another's perspective and then make effective decisions about how to proceed based on evidence.

There is enormous value in peer to peer supportive relationships for a variety of conditions. But the relationship between a psychologist to a patient is different than that on many levels. If you think that you have to have "been there" in order to adequately provide care (whether you are an addict, cancer survivor, etc) and in order to function effectively as a psychologist, then you are alienating 98% of people you will have to work with due to your poor clinical skills.
 
This whole discussion just reminds me of how important boundaries are and higlights how important the issue of self-disclosure is. I think people conflate "empathy" with inappropriate self-disclosure a lot, when they could be harming their clients by deviating from appropriate interventions in order to insert their own experience into the relationship. We are here for the client and their issue(s), folks, and having strong clinical skills means that you do your best to take another's perspective and then make effective decisions about how to proceed based on evidence.

There is enormous value in peer to peer supportive relationships for a variety of conditions. But the relationship between a psychologist to a patient is different than that on many levels. If you think that you have to have "been there" in order to adequately provide care (whether you are an addict, cancer survivor, etc) and in order to function effectively as a psychologist, then you are alienating 98% of people you will have to work with due to your poor clinical skills.

I agree Pragma. It is imperative to not break boundaries, regardless of your orientation.
 
What about just saying you've been in therapy before? Is that a "kiss of death?"
When I've stated it in interviews I've received very positive feedback, the training directors said it's something they look for in students who are willing to explore their own psychopathology and history. I've never had someone state during or after an interview say I shouldn't have disclosed the fact I've attended therapy.
 
Top Bottom