The Web address of this two-page article is http://sfhelp.org/Rx/ex/wounded.htm

Continued from page 1...

All these roiling, semi-independent parts of Beth's personality are real. She is not crazy, sick, "mentally ill," or weird. We all have a group of well-meaning subselves who give us thoughts, ideas, images, and "feelings" like these all the time. So do Louis and Sharon. So do the kids Mary and Sean, and Beth's "cold" mother. So do you and any ex mates you're struggling with. Do you accept this? If not (yet), read this.

        I write this with firm conviction, having experienced a wide range of average women and men ex-pressing and acknowledging their various subselves in my office, since 1988. I know of many other therapists who have the same experience and learned conviction. 

        They and I were never taught about normal "personality parts" in graduate school. We were taught about the extreme condition of Multiple Personality Disorder - now called Dissociative Identity Disorder by psychiatrists. My colleagues and I learned about the normalcy, symptoms, and effects of false-selves from our unaware, troubled clients and other clinicians and authors.

        Note that...

The subselves' sequence above took about five seconds, since many of Beth's (and your) subselves "talk" at once. This causes confusion and upset - signs of current false-self dom-inance and conflict. Contrast these to the mix of feelings we get when our Self (capital "S") is solidly in charge.

Beth's true Self is disabled, and is not guiding her other subselves or their emotional, short-sighted decisions. That means the woman will react impulsively and unconsciously, rather than with the wide-angle, long-term wisdom her Self could provide. This behavior steadily frustrates and irritates Sharon and Louis!

Beth is unaware of her subselves and their internal uproar. She can say "What I think" and "What I feel," but she has little conscious awareness of the different sources of her in-ner "voices" (thoughts, images, and sensations). She and her teachers have never read ideas like these. This is part of the unawareness that contributes to epidemic U.S. (re)divorce. It's also why awareness is the first of seven vital communication skills anyone can benefit from.

These three adults and their supporters have no idea this kind of inner free-for all is going on in each of them (and other family members) - specially in conflictual interactions be-tween the ex mates' active subselves.

        If you haven't recently, detour to read this example of a real stepfamily I worked with. It outlines probable inner-family interactions in and between two of the co-parents. Then read this vivid excerpt.

        If your self-talk trends toward skepticism or ridicule of the idea of personality subselves controlling normal human behavior, read this letter to you, and try this safe, interesting exercise. Then see what you think. Currently, about 80% of site-visitors like you accept the idea of personality subselves.

        If Sharon and Louis read the prior page and all the linked articles, they might begin to see Beth and her actions as wounded and burdened, rather than bad (selfish, malicious, vengeful, crazy, sick, and/or pathetic).

If Louis and Sharon are each to make such a lasting second-order (core attitude) change, their true Selves must be solidly in charge of their own personalities. Recall your reaction to reading the prior page. Did you focus mainly on the ex mate in your life, or did you focus on your inner team of subselves and who leads  it?

        Our (false self's) normal protective instinct is to avoid looking at ourselves, unless our Self or our Inner Critic is in charge. When the latter happens, we over-focus on our own failings and faults - specially if we have an active Perfectionist subself insisting that we must do the impossible.

        This is particularly powerful for those of us who have a strong (hidden) Shamed subself, like Beth does. When our Self guides our personality, we can say without excessive guilt, anxiety, or shame "Yes, (something un-thrilling) is true about me and my actions, and I am responsible for it."

        For the sake of this (best case) example, let's assume that Louis and Sharon helped each other to assess themselves for significant false-self dominance. They did this by taking two weeks to read and discuss the articles in Project 1. Then they each used the 11 self-exam worksheets. 

        They concluded (uncomfortably) that they each had significant false-self wounds, though not as severe as Beth. The couple admitted that when either of them doubted the safety of young Sean and/or Mary, or felt disrespected by Beth, their false selves took over, and sent Beth demeaning messages. 

        If Sharon and Louis had not self-assessed for psychological wounds, their ruling subselves would discount what you're about to read ("That's totally unrealistic. It won't work in our case!") and/or ignore it. Neither co-parent would be aware this was happening. Implication: if you don't check to see who's leading your clan of subselves, you risk missing some real chances to improve your version of "the Beth prob-lem"...

        Once Louis and Sharon accepted (a) the concepts of true and false selves, and (b) their own and Beth's psychological wounds, a powerful second-order change occurred. Each co-parent independently began to see Beth compassionately as a hurt, scared, confused, shamed, wounded woman struggling not to be overwhelmed by life as a single mother. They stopped viewing her actions as intentionally mali-cious, and began to see how their own behavior promoted hers.

        Louis said "It's almost as though her false self were an ogre strapped to her back, constantly filter-ing her eyesight, and whispering lies to her. If we say 'Beth, you have an ogre on your back! For your and the kids' sakes, get rid of it!', she turns around, and sees... nothing.

        Her false self whispers persuasively 'See, they're blaming you, and trying to make you think you're crazy! They're not safe - they're the crazy ones. Never trust them You don't need to change anything!" 

        To shift from blame and scorn to genuine compassion and empathy, most co-parents need credible answers to questions like these...

"Why doesn't Beth (or any significantly-wounded person) see that she's ruled by a false self and do something about it?"

        Because she has no reason to change her belief that "I have one personality - me." Western society teaches us "People with 'multiple personalities' (subselves) are weird, dangerous, sick, and crazy!" Who wants to risk those judgments and discover "I've had a chaotic set of subselves running my life for years, including my parenting efforts."?

"But why can't we reason with her - even show her articles like these so she can see, like we did?"

        Common false-self traits (wounds) are protective distrust and reality distortions like denials and projections ("I'm not 'wounded' - you are!"). Another is excessive fears. Be-cause dominant false selves usually mis-read well-intentioned behaviors as insulting ["You're a bad mother, and must change: We're (superior), and you're inferior and wrong"]  and attacking ("Oh, so you think I'm 'wounded,' weak, and sick, huh? And just what cos-mic authority appointed you as my mental-health monitor?")

"So does this mean we have to 'give up' and let Beth disrespect me/us, and  hurt Sean and Mary even if she can't see that she is?"

        No. You can choose as many of these options as fit your circumstances, including grieving the lost dream that you're able to protect Sean and Mary perfectly. You cannot. If you feel Beth is truly abusing or neglecting either child, you have moral and legal obliga-tions to invoke the legal and child-welfare systems on their behalf. If you do, expect Beth's false self to react impulsively, primally, and defensively. Use these wise guidelines to help your Selves accept what you can and cannot control...

        Once co-parents like Sharon and Louis (and you) (a) accept credible answers to questions like these, and (b) grieve the shattered illusion that they can control the uncontrollable; then they're ready to make...

Another Attitude Change...

        As the couple began to view Beth as hurt, unaware, and unable vs. unwilling to make healthy ("ra-tional") co-parenting decisions, some of their expectations of Beth spontaneously changed. Instead of endlessly expecting and demanding her to fit their idea of a "responsible" divorced mother, they relaxed somewhat, without guilt.

        Instead of expecting Beth to want to tell them of school events involving either of the kids, Lou and Sharon proactively asked the kids, and arranged with key teachers and counselors, to inform themselves. They found the school had a Web site from which they often could learn what they needed, and plan from it.

        This shift reduced the number of arguments with Beth, and lowered her experience of being attack-ed and threatened - specially since the couple did not blame her for "making" them change to get the information they needed.

        Instead of expecting Beth to flex and not "over-react" if Louis's child-support check was a few days late, they accepted that as long as her Self was disabled, her true Self couldn't prevent her protective false self  from "overreacting."

        So instead of continuing to try logic and arguments, Lou worked to (a) keep his Self in charge when Beth called to berate him or argue, and to (b) use empathic listening skill. To his surprise, he found that when he stopped disagreeing, explaining, defending, and counterattacking, Beth's E(motion)-level fell "below her ears" and she could actually hear him!

        Instead of expecting Beth to accept or welcome Sharon's co-parenting help, Sharon and Louis struggled to simply validate that Beth's false self was scared to do that for various distorted reasons. When the kids showed their confusion about "obeying" their stepmom during visitations, Lou explained "I know this is hard for you. Your Mom has a different way of doing things than we do. We need you to help us when you're here by cooperating when Sharon asks you to do something."

        They worked patiently to help young Sean and Mary understand how stepfamilies worked, and that "stepmother" was an important family job, not a person. Lou and Sharon patiently avoided the temptation to imply to the kids that their Mom was bad or wrong.  

        One of the most impactful expectation changes the co-parent couple made after accepting they were dealing with Beth's false self was their time frame. Instead of blindly arguing over each short-term visitation or telephone conflict that came up, Louis and Sharon began to think in terms of how each child-related dispute related to "the next 15 years." 

        They began to wonder if they could invite (vs. force) Beth to change gradually, by steadily treating her with respect as they encountered their stepfamily loyalty conflicts over the kids. This involved their honestly owning they had not respected her, which had fueled their spiral of conflicts. It also required them to re-examine the way they had been asserting their needs and boundaries (limits) to Beth and her (wounded) mother.

        This was part of another major expectation shift: Sharon and Lou stopped blindly hoping that the way they were communicating with Beth would "work, somehow" (would get their needs filled), because history showed it didn't. Seeing Beth as controlled by a false self, vs. bad, helped them change their ex-pectations of all three of them. Another thing that helped was their growing awareness that there was a whole different way to communicate with her.

New Knowledge + New Attitudes = New Outcomes

        In this example, Sharon and Louis each genuinely accepted their identity as a normal stepfamily, and began learning and discussing what that meant. They shifted from skepticism to feeling "Maybe these 12 Projects do apply to us ..." They began to study and discuss Project 2 - learning to apply seven powerful communication skills.

        After reading and discussing these basics, the partners studied common communication blocks, and inventoried their strengths. To their discomfort, Sharon and Lou discovered their typical communica-tions with Beth were riddled with these blocks, and that they caused half of each one!

        Keeping their new "15-year time-frame" in mind, they set out to experiment with patiently evolving new ways of asserting their needs and boundaries, listening, and problem solving with Beth. They began to apply these tips with Beth, each other, and the kids...

        They chose to shift several old unconscious reflexes to intentional choices: The couple ...

started to focus on filling primary needs, not Beth's behaviors ("She was so rude!") or character traits ("I can't believe how malicious she is"). And Sharon and Lou ...

saw that often, they'd get quickly tangled in a web of internal and interpersonal need-conflicts, and rehashing old conflicts vs. concurrent present conflicts, with and about Beth. The couple agreed to help each other focus on resolving one issue at a time, no matter how Beth's false self reacted. 

        This led to planning their communications with Beth more carefully - e.g. before call-ing, they'd ask "So what do I/we need from her now?" The harder part was trying to guess-timate " ... and what does she need from us?" A difficult shift was to accept that Beth's human dignity and needs were just as worthy as their own, though their values and priori-ties were very different.

The couple acknowledged that they had unconsciously joined Beth's anxious false self in reducing typical complex stepfamily situations into black/white two-choice scenarios: our way vs. Beth's way.

        Black/white thinking usually misses lots of good-enough compromises. They began trying out the concept of brainstorming different ways of getting their co-parenting and rela-tionship needs met, and discovered there were often more options than they thought.

A powerful shift occurred when they mapped some recent communication sequences with Beth, and discovered that Lou would consistently get hooked into arguing, explaining, disa-greeing, blaming, defending, and bringing up the past, instead of listening to Beth. Lou was relieved to affirm that listening didn't necessarily mean agreeing.

        They acknowledged that like their own, each of Beth's subselves needed to feel heard and respected - and hadn't felt those with Lou, for years. Each parent had grown to uncon-sciously expect demeaning "I'm 1-up" messages from the other before anyone spoke. Lou took responsibility for changing his R(espect) message to "=/=," regardless of how Beth's false self behaved.

        What did all these changes mean? Examples:

Old way: Lou would say to Beth "I can't believe you have the gall to go against our parenting agreement and block my rightful visitation with Sean and Mary!" (implied R-message: "I declare that you're wrong and bad, and I'm right and good.")

New way: "Beth, when your needs make it hard for me to spend time with our kids, I get really frustra-ted."

Old way: "Beth, I am sick and tired of your selfish, vindictive attempts to alienate the kids from me and Sharon. What kind of so-called mother are you?!"        This kind of blaming statement, and the provocative term "Parent Alienation Syndrome" (PAS) are insulting, accusatory, and disrespectful (1-up). Thinking and speaking insulting terms and con-cepts like these will increase internal and interpersonal conflicts with and about wounded ex mates who aren't aware of their false-self dominance and what it means.

New way: "Beth, you seem so anxious and untrusting around me and Sharon. I really worry that unless you and I do something to improve our mutual respect and trust, the kids are going to get hurt worse than they already are - and we'll regret not trying, when we're old. Will you work with me to find out what's really blocking you and me from co-parenting better, for Mary and Sean's sakes?" 

        Ideally, Lou's true Self would calmly expect Beth (i.e. her hyper-alert false self) to respond with shrill blame, distortion, and criticism. He would be ready to use respectful empathic listening, and respectfully re-assert his feelings and need to problem-solve.

Old way: "How come you didn't tell me Sean had a parent-teacher conference next Wednesday night?" (Lou's words and voice tone imply "You're bad/wrong (inferior)", which triggers shame, guilt, and uproar among Beth's subselves.)

New way (informationally): "I understand from Ms. McKendrick that we have a parent-teacher night for Sean next week, Beth. I want you know that Sharon and I will be there."

Beth: "How many times do I have to tell you, that woman (Sharon) has no business coming to these meetings about our kids? I won't allow it!"

Old way: Louis (i.e. his false self): "You can't dictate what we will or won't do. Sharon is my wife and the kids' stepmother. She has a perfect right to come to these meetings!" (Implied 1-up message: "I don't care what you feel or need. I'm right, and you're wrong.")

New way: Calmly, vs. sarcastically ... 

• "Mmm. So you feel strongly that there's no value in Sharon's meeting with Sean's teacher and me. (silence)";  or ...

• "Well, we have a major values conflict on this, Beth. What is it about Sharon's meeting with the teachers that bothers you?"; or ...

• "Ok, I understand you're very uncomfortable with Sharon coming next Wednesday. I really value her help with our kids, so I think what we'll do then is meet with Ms. McKendrick another time next week"; or ...

• "On our kids' behalf, I'm sad that you feel that way, Beth. (silence)"

Beth, on the phone to Lou a week later: "Mom's been asking for time with the kids, so I'm taking them to her house this weekend (instead of the normal visitation schedule). You pick them up in two weeks." (Im-plied false-self message: "My needs come first here (I'm 1-up), and yours come second: I demand that you adapt to my needs without arguing or complaining." 

Lou - Old way: "What? You can't just tell me how visitation's going to be! The court order which you signed says that I get every other weekend! This is my weekend, so find another time for the kids to be with their Grandmother!" Implied message: "No, my needs come first, here, and yours and your mother's come second. You will do visitation my way. The court says you have to." This is a 1-up power response, guaranteed to cause Sharon's false self to erupt.

New way: "Yeah, I agree with you that it's good for the kids and Martha to have times together." Pause...

Beth (sarcastically): "Well, amazing! Maybe there's hope. You've decided to be reasonable for a change!" 

Lou's true Self (calmly deciding not to get hooked into a lose-lose fight with Beth's false self, and staying focused) - "You know, I feel frustrated when you wait until the day before to tell me of a visitation change you want, because then our weekend plans get messed up.  (pause, to collect and sort thoughts)  "I, uh, have three needs now.

        "First, I need to discuss whether there are other times Martha and the kids could get together in the next week or two. Second, I need to ask you to give me more notice on visitation changes you need. Third, I need to say that when you make decisions about us and the kids without consulting me, I feel ignored, disrespected, and resentful. That makes it harder for me to want to cooperate with you, Beth. Are you in a place to talk about optional times with Martha now?" 

"Beth" (i.e. her Warrior subself), with righteous sarcasm: "Lou, I am so sick of your stupid control games. You are not going to decree when the kids see my mother, just because of your precious 'plans'." (invitation to battle!)

Lou's true Self (aware of their process, and suppresses his inner Warrior) - "So you feel I'm trying to con-trol you." (empathic listening, not agreeing);

Beth (startled, suspicious, and feeling heard): "Huh? You've never said that before ..."

        Yep - that kind of acknowledgement tells you that something really is changing!

        These brief samples illustrate a whole class of new communication sequences open to these war-ring ex mates. The sequences will have a different outcome than the unconscious old exchanges, as long as Lou (and/or Sharon) patiently ...

shifts from seeing Beth as bad and wrong to unaware and dominated by a protective false self; and ... 

keeps a long-term outlook (vs. "next weekend"), and he (or she)...

stays focused on one current true needs-clash ("problem") at a time, with a genuine =/= (mutually respectful) attitude about Beth's and his true Selves, and he (or she)...

stays alert for signs that his own false self has impulsively caused him to use ineffective old communication blocks; and he (or she)..

work to stay clear on and accept what they can and cannot change about Beth and their complex stepfamily situation; then ...

...new co-parenting trust and respect may gradually grow between the ex mates. Lou and Sharon can control their half of co-parenting communications with Beth, which makes changes in her likely. If Beth doesn't "see" that she's being controlled by a chaotic false self, then there are limits to the benefits from using the seven Project-2 communication skills.

        These skills are not magic bullets. Well used, and powered with a genuine mutual-respect attitude, the seven skills are powerful ways of producing better communication outcomes, long term. They also work effectively with internal disputes (among subselves), once they're discerned and validated! For ex-ample: Lou's Warrior subself wants to fight (counterattack) Beth, and his Self says "No, not a good long-term idea. Let's try another way here..."

        Pause and listen with interest what your inner voices (thought streams, images, memories,...) are saying, as you finish this brief example. How would you describe what you're feeling? Numb? Excited? Skeptical? Bored? Confused? Motivated? ... Who's guiding your personality now - your true Self or some-one else?

        Pause and reflect - what's your reaction to this example? Skepticism? Inspiration? Awareness? Guilt? Indifference? Do you want to try something different with your "ex mate problem"?

Recap

<