This sentence is very telling: "It emerged over 60 years ago to describe patients on the border between neurosis and psychosis who might be amenable to treatmen

This sentence is very telling: "It emerged over 60 years ago to describe patients on the border between neurosis and psychosis who might be amenable to treatment with psychoanalysis." What I love about this article is it makes us question the thing we all think we can't question: the validity of the diagnosis itself. What if the whole thing is wrong? What if it is this "easy" thing clinicians invented because they just got frustrated with how insanely certain patients acted when their underlying neuroses became so severe that they progressed into something closer to psychosis? What if focusing on a BPD diagnosis masks underlying conditions that are much easier to recognize and treat? What if it is just underlying disorders advanced to the Nth degree, that all somehow converge on a similar behavior set (much like psychosis), despite a differing underlying cause, and that focusing on that similar behavior set rather than on those underlying disorders is what causes BPD to be so untreatable? A BPD diagnosis is often hopeless. There are no good drugs for it, and talk therapy works poorly. Almost all the comments here on HN from people who have someone with BPD in their life reflect this reality, and how terrible BPD is. This article actually gives me hope for my sister. It gives me a new perspective on how we have been trying to help her, and why it might not be working.