4 ms·

> I've dealt with someone with eBPD who was unable to get through a 45 minute therapy session without contradicting themselves. They also habitually selectively

> I've dealt with someone with eBPD who was unable to get through a 45 minute therapy session without contradicting themselves. They also habitually selectively report facts to distort reality[1]. > 1: Here's an example with details changed... How is this not supposed to be an example of a contradiction? You pre-empted your "they distort reality" comment with the presumption that there are contradictions, then go on to give an example that doesn't contain any. It just contains lazy details, which justly lead to incorrect inferences. Whether this is indicative of intentional manipulative behavior or distorted views of reality is hard to say without more context.

aidenn0 5y ago
I believe the word "also" should indicate that the behavior in the second sentence is distinct from the behavior in the first sentence. There are two behaviors here: - They contradict themselves. - They habitually selectively report facts to distort reality The footnote belongs with the second behavior which is why the [1] was on the second sentence.
- kempbellt 5y ago
  You are using a supposed contradiction as evidence that they have a distorted view of reality. Without the contradiction (which I see none), the argument that they are distorting reality lacks premise. It banks on inferring, "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." to explicitly mean "Joe was driving drunk". It isn't a completely off-base interpretation, but it isn't rock solid either. More context is necessary before this conversation has any real value.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Once again: I never claimed there was a contradiction in the example given. It may have been unclear in my original comment, but I have clarified this twice now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720636

aidenn0 5y ago

I believe the word "also" should indicate that the behavior in the second sentence is distinct from the behavior in the first sentence. There are two behaviors here: - They contradict themselves. - They habitually selectively report facts to distort reality The footnote belongs with the second behavior which is why the [1] was on the second sentence.

kempbellt 5y ago
You are using a supposed contradiction as evidence that they have a distorted view of reality. Without the contradiction (which I see none), the argument that they are distorting reality lacks premise. It banks on inferring, "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." to explicitly mean "Joe was driving drunk". It isn't a completely off-base interpretation, but it isn't rock solid either. More context is necessary before this conversation has any real value.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Once again: I never claimed there was a contradiction in the example given. It may have been unclear in my original comment, but I have clarified this twice now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720636