Sarah Fine's Blog, page 10

"Always Make The Active Choice."

The other day, I was talking with a colleague of mine. We were discussing a tough decision one of our staff had made, and I said something like, "Maybe I should reach out to her. I mean, I don't want to bother her, but--"

And my colleague said, "Always make the active choice."

Now, I may be a helping professional, but I'm also very introverted and shy by nature. Sometimes, in my personal interactions, I let things lie rather than reaching out, because, when I think of reaching out, all these thoughts attack me at once: What if she doesn't want you to call her? What if she just wants to be left alone? What if you say the wrong thing? What if it doesn't matter anyway? Probably a lot of other people are offering their support, so yours doesn't really matter...

Yeah, I do that. I admit it. I make those excuses. And I was really struck by my colleague's words, and how right she was. She was basically saying, "Don't sit back. Don't let it ride. Reach out and let her know you're thinking about her." She was saying the "risk" of reaching out is completely overwhelmed by the potential benefits. And the risk of taking the passive road? That person would never have known she was on my mind. She might have assumed I didn't care. That she didn't mean that much to me. The opposite is true, but how could she have known that?

For some of you, reaching out might come naturally. You might do this as automatically as breathing. But for me, it takes thought and effort, and that's just the way I'm wired. That's no excuse, though. I should make the active choice more often.

I'm going to try to do that.

How about you? Do you always make the active choice? Do you step outside of yourself and any fears of awkwardness, and just let someone know you're thinking about them? Is this easy for you, or are you more like me, in that you need to work at it a little bit?

And, because I'm just so very excited: please go visit Mundie Moms on Sunday (May 27) to see the cover of SANCTUM! I'll also be answering a few questions about the story, and I hope you'll stop by and let me know what you think. It should be up by late morning CST.

SANCTUM Cover Reveal Announcement (and a winner!)

SANCTUM first pass pages are due today, so this is going to be short! A month or so ago I posted that when I saw the initial cover proofs for SANCTUM, I burst into tears because it was just such an emotional experience, and the designer captured the story so perfectly. Now that I've seen the final cover, I feel the same way, except ... MORE THAT WAY. I'm so excited to share it with everyone!

And ...

On Sunday, May 27th, the cover for SANCTUM will be revealed on the Mundie Moms blog!

I'm thrilled that Katie will be hosting the cover reveal, and I'll also be answering a few of her questions about the story. Yes, I know it's the day before Memorial Day, but trust me, it's a good cover, worth taking a break from barbecuing to check out. I hope you'll stop by and let me know what you think!

Also, last week I hosted Brigid Kemmerer, the author of STORM, here on the blog. The winner of the signed copy of STORM is ...

CHARMAINE CLANCY
Congratulations, Charmaine! I know you're going to love STORM.

Happy Monday, everyone!

A chat with Brigid Kemmerer, author of STORM

Today, I'm honored to host Brigid Kemmerer, author of STORM:

Earth, Fire, Air, Water – they have more power than you dream.

Ever since her ex-boyfriend spread those lies about her, Becca Chandler is suddenly getting all the guys—all the ones she doesn't want. Then she saves Chris Merrick from a beating in the school parking lot. Chris is different. Way different: he can control water—just like his brothers can control fire, wind, and earth. They’re powerful. Dangerous. Marked for death.

And now that she knows the truth, so is Becca.

Secrets are hard to keep when your life’s at stake. When Hunter, the mysterious new kid around school, turns up with a talent for being in the wrong place at the right time, Becca thinks she can trust him. But then Hunter goes head-to-head with Chris, and Becca wonders who’s hiding the most dangerous truth of all.

The storm is coming . . .

As I mentioned Monday, I've read STORM twice. I'll probably read it again, too. It's that good. I am also lucky enough to have read SPARK and a bit of SPIRIT, books 2 and 3 in this fabulous paranormal YA series (SPARK comes out in August of this year!). Brigid was kind enough to answer a few questions I had for her about the Merrick brothers.

A lot of reviews have mentioned the relationship between these four brothers, and that really stood out to me, too, from the first time I read the book. One of the things they're struggling with is how to relate to each other, since Michael, the eldest, assumed the role of caretaker after their parents died. Can you talk a little about how each brother thinks about that relationship?

 Chris is the youngest, and trying to determine where he fits in his family and in the world, living in the shadow of his older brothers. Gabriel and Nick are twins and the middle brothers, and they have each other to rely on -- though they're fiercely protective of their brothers when they need to be. They all resent Michael somewhat, because their parents' deaths have forced him to move into a parental role instead of that of "big brother." The Merrick brothers are trapped in town by circumstance: they're not allowed to use their abilities or they'll be put to death, while bullies in town seem determined to take them out themselves.
Michael wants to keep the peace to keep his brothers safe. Gabriel is a hothead and thinks they should fight back. Nick is more even-keeled and doesn't directly defy Michael -- but he'll follow his twin brother into trouble without looking back. Chris is torn between two camps: wanting to respect Michael, the older brother to whom he was once close, and wanting to fight back. When I started writing from Chris's POV, it was startling how quickly the brothers fell into their respective roles -- and how passionately they felt about their place in the family.
I've read several reviews that mention that STORM has a contemporary feel, and that is the best compliment ever -- because I wanted to deliver a story that had the action/adventure of a paranormal, but the emotional punch of a contemporary. The brothers deal with supernatural abilities, sure, but they have to deal with real life, too.
One thing I admired about the family dynamics in STORM is that they feel very realistic to me. In real life, conflicts don't get resolved in a single sitting, and patterns get pretty entrenched over time. But as a writer, I'm often tempted to let my characters off the hook, to have them reconcile quickly because I have trouble tolerating their discomfort. I suspect many writers experience the same thing. What advice do you have about when to stick with the tension, and when to let characters kiss and make up (or, in the case of the brothers, give each other manly hugs and all that)?I firmly believe in putting conflict on every page -- and family conflict can be some of the hardest to deal with. It's insanely uncomfortable. It's so uncomfortable that I'm dodging writing the next chapter of SPIRIT right this second. Yes, really. (Unless my editor is reading this, and in that case I'm totally kidding.) Sometimes when I'm writing a scene of heightened family conflict, I have to do other things just to get through it. I'll write a few lines, then go read a news article. A few more lines, then go watch a YouTube video. A few more lines, then check Twitter. It's almost like I'm watching the altercation from the next room, and I keep peeking around the doorway to make sure everyone is still alive. The tension is that palpable to me. My husband has found me sobbing on the laptop, and he always rolls his eyes at me -- but I have to cry because the Merrick brothers just can't. (I like to say that if they knew how much I cried while writing their scenes, they'd demand to be written out of the book.)

Bottom line: my advice is to not walk away from the conflict just because it makes you uncomfortable. That discomfort is what's going to make your scene powerful. And I only let them make up when a character has fallen so far that I know one more conflict is going to break him.Now, seriously. You want to read STORM now, don't you? One of my commenters today will win a signed copy, so sound off and let me know if you struggle with your characters' discomfort as much as I do, and how you deal with it! Also, feel free to ask Brigid any questions about her work, her writing/publishing journey, etc. She'll drop by throughout the day to answer them.

I'll announce the winner of the signed copy of STORM on Monday, May 21st!

The intriguing squirminess of cognitive dissonance

Today I am going to talk about a psychological concept I find really fascinating: cognitive dissonance. I hope, by the end of this post, you will also be fascinated by it, because heck, at the very least, it's kind of fun to slip into conversation.

First! What on earth is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

As I mentioned last week, cognitive dissonance is squirminess of a particular kind. It is the squirminess that happens when two conflicting yet important beliefs reside inside your skull.

You know, like:
You believe cheating is wrong. You believe you are a good person. And then you cheat. You believe the lottery is a tax on fools. You think you are not foolish. Then the Powerball reaches 700 quintillion and ...You like the guy in the White House. You hear a political commentator saying that he could be doing a lot more to lower gas prices.You think being traditionally published is a mark of success. You believe you have what it takes to be a successful writer. But you've queried, and so far, no joy.You think being traditionally published is a mark of success. You get an agent! You get an offer from a Big 6 publisher! It's a "nice" deal. Meanwhile, you're reading tales of the self-published living off the income from their books.
Okay! Are you feeling squirmy yet? So here's the deal--cognitive dissonance itself isn't what's interesting here. What is: how people deal with it. Because, you know what we usually do? We either:
change one of the beliefs (or associated thoughts or behaviors),acquire new beliefs consistent with ONE of the pre-existing beliefs, which tips the scales in favor of one, orforget or underplay one or both of the conflicting thoughts, reducing their importance and the discomfort.Using the above examples: students who agree cheating is wrong but who are then induced to cheat on a task report afterward that cheating ain't so bad, or is justifiable in certain instances. People who buy lottery tickets overestimate their probability of winning after the purchase. If you like the guy in the White House, you're much more likely to decide he can't do anything about gas prices. And as for the publishing examples ...

I've been reading the articles in the Guardian and the NY Times. And the blogs (oh, the blogs!). And the Twitter. The very good points made by proponents of self-publishing, as well as those made by proponents of traditional publishing. There's been a *bit* of snipery on both sides, too.

I can't help but wonder, how much of a role does cognitive dissonance play here for writers and other industry professionals? It seems like it's much easier to demonize one side, to promote one message, to dismiss evidence inconsistent with one's argument, to two-dimensionalize the whole debate, than it is to examine it critically. Oh, and by critically, I don't mean harshly (because there's plenty of that going around!). I mean by examining the assumptions behind the arguments, the interests of the people making the arguments, and the actual facts (though let's just admit that "facts" are quite difficult to discern, because they are so very easy to spin).

This comes into play in politics, too. IN FACT, just last week I was listening to an NPR feature about this very concept and its role in partisan politics! Did any of you hear it? If you didn't, it's seriously worth a listen or a read. Especially the bits about how, when it comes down to emotional connections or facts, we tend to jettison facts and cling to our emotional loyalties. The interview discussed how to "inoculate" ourselves against that, as well. It's simple, actually: people who feel good about themselves can more easily integrate uncomfortable facts that are out of sync with those emotional connections. [Again, I do urge you to skip on over to that NPR link. I promise you won't regret it, and that you will laugh if you listen to the whole thing, which is less than 5 minutes long]

How about you? Are you taking in all the information about traditional vs. self-publishing and withholding judgment? (Or do you not actually care that much about it?) Do you think cognitive dissonance is in play? Where else have you spotted cognitive dissonance in action?

ONE MORE THING: On Wednesday, I will be hosting Brigid Kemmerer, the author of STORM, a book I have read three times because it is just that enjoyable. Stop by for a chance to win a signed copy of STORM, and to learn how Brigid manages family dynamics and interpersonal tension in her stories. Speaking as a psychologist and a writer, I can tell you I'm really in awe of how she does it, and the results.

The Kindness Project

Too often kindness is relegated to a random act performed only when we’re feeling good.  But an even greater kindness (to ourselves and others) occurs when we reach out even when we aren't feeling entirely whole . It’s not easy, and no one is perfect. But we’ve decided it’s not impossible to brighten the world one smile, one kind word, one blog post at a time. To that end, a few of us writers have established The Kindness Project.

In my work, I talk to a lot of really fatigued parents. They come to me because they have had it UP TO HERE with their kid, who is constantly arguing, hitting, kicking, spitting, back talking, etc. etc. They come to me because they are looking for answers--and for a way to make the kid act like a civilized human being.

Usually, by the time they make the appointment, they've tried every consequence allowed within the bounds of decent parenting: they've confiscated toys, privileges, video games, whatever. And they're spending nearly all their time yelling at or criticizing the kid. They're desperate to stop the shouting and the fighting, but they don't know how else to make the bad behavior GO AWAY.

So, when I tell them that the first thing they need to do is start praising the kid for the slightest good behavior, and playing with the kid in this special way ... that feels pretty weird.

Except: it works. Oh, man. Does it ever work.

There are a few reasons why. First, yes, you're rewarding behavior you'd like to see more often. But also? You're showing the kid you LIKE him.

And guess what? A kid who feels liked is more likeable.

A PERSON WHO FEELS LIKED IS MORE LIKEABLE. 

You know it's true! When you feel disliked, what do you do? You probably either withdraw (*raises hand*) or you decide you don't like the person who you think dislikes you. Result? You probably act less friendly. You actually become less likeable (at least, toward the person you think doesn't like you).

But when you feel liked? You feel safe. You reach out. You connect. You're filled up a little more, so you can give a little more. It makes you braver. It helps you get through tough times, because you've got some emotional reserve in the bank.

By focusing on noticing the quiet "good behaviors" amidst all the "noise"--the information and drama and doomsday predictions tossed at us every day--we can nurture a community. By stretching a little, and letting people know when they've done something good, kind, considerate, compassionate, neat, cool, interesting, fantastic, awe-inspiring, useful, practical, difficult, impressive, selfless, quirky, original, classic, elegant ... or even just noticing them and acknowledging their place in our community, we can make it better. By taking the first step toward someone (even when it doesn't seem "deserved" or super-special, even when you're feeling tired and overwhelmed by all your own stuff), you can increase the chance we'll all benefit from his or her gifts, whatever they are.

It takes a few seconds. And a little bit of thought. Not much more than that. Even so, I know I don't do it often enough. Now I'm going to try a little harder.

Here are the other bloggers who are participating in this project. I'm honored to be associated with them:
Elizabeth Davis
Liza Kane
Amie Kaufman
Sara Larson
Matthew MacNish
Sara McClung
Gretchen McNeil
Tracey Neithercott
Lola Sharp
Michele Shaw
Meagan Spooner
Carolina Valdez Miller

We post the second Wednesday of every month. Want to join us? Grab our button and spread a little kindness.

Wherein I dissect a scandal. Sort of. Maybe.

During my little hiatus, a few dramas unfolded in the YA blogosphere, and the two I directly observed had one thing in common: someone well-known did something disappointing.

Now, if you've read this blog for a while, you know I'm not going to hop up on a soapbox and add my opinion about the scandals to the pile. I do that rarely here, simply because there are enough opinions out there, so why would anyone want to hear mine?

What I will do: dissect it a bit, from a psychological perspective. That's why you come here, right? Oh, that or you're a kind, patient person with a high tolerance for eccentricity, and maybe we're friends, or possibly you're my dad (hi, Dad. I love you).

Okay! Someone well-known does something disappointing. And gets caught--and called out publicly. (No, I'm not going to link, sorry.) When these events went down, I read post after post with interest, and noticed that the (hundreds of) reactions coalesced into a few different types:

1. People who had neutral or negative opinions of WELL-KNOWN PERSON (WKP), and openly and loudly (you know, with all-caps and hashtags, etc.) condemned WKP for committing the TRANSGRESSION.

2. People who had positive opinions of WKP, who might have otherwise been extremely offended by the TRANSGRESSION, but who were much more willing to forgive and forget the transgression because of who committed it.

If you're wondering, yes, there were plenty of in-between kinds of opinions, but much of what I saw landed in one of these two camps, and that's what I'm going to focus on today (or else this would be a *really* long post).

Anyway, what's going on here? Both camps were presented with the evidence. Not just he said-she said--there was data! Screen captures! Time stamps! And it was evidence of something that is accepted by everyone in this community as BAD. How could people differ so widely in their reactions to something objectively labeled as unethical?


Well. This happens all the time, doesn't it?

A few psychological concepts are in play here, and I'm only going to mention two of them:

Cognitive dissonance --the discomfort we feel when we hold two conflicting beliefs in our heads at once. Example: TRANSGRESSION is bad. WKP is good. But WKP committed TRANSGRESSION. That's a recipe for a lot of distress ... unless you kind of ... let one of those beliefs become slightly less important. In this case, people who held the above beliefs could either reject WKP or downplay the TRANSGRESSION (i.e., "it wasn't that bad.").

See how that might have been at work here? *Some* of the reactions to what happened could have been due to people trying to resolve cognitive dissonance by de-emphasizing a previously strongly held belief because it was just too uncomfortable to hold onto both beliefs at once. (I find cognitive dissonance so fascinating that I'll be posting more on it next week.)

Person vs. Situation explanations --when we're trying to understand behavior, we make guesses about WHY someone does something. Even when we're not consciously aware of doing so. Sometimes, we attribute behavior to the person: He is lazy. He is dishonest. She is insincere. She only looks out for herself. Sometimes, we attribute behavior to the situation: It was a momentary lapse in judgment. It was an isolated incident. She was under a lot of pressure. He was exhausted from trying to do too many things at once.

Again--you can see how this might have come into play. People who did not know WKP very well--or who didn't like WKP very much--probably erred on the side of person-oriented explanations, attributing the transgression to something inherent, permanent, and likely to generalize across situations--and that would leave them wary of WKP and unlikely to forgive easily, because the transgression was the result of  a character flaw. People who know WKP, or who have had positive experiences with WKP, or who have benefited from association with WKP, probably erred on the side of situation-oriented explanations, attributing the transgression to something external to the person, temporary, and unlikely to generalize to other situations--which makes it easier to forgive and forget, because anyone could find themselves in that situation, right?


There you have it--this is how people react so differently to the same TRANSGRESSION. And it happens to all of us, every single day. None of us is immune to the effects of cognitive dissonance or person vs. situation explanations. None of us is as objective and logical as we'd like to believe. So now it's your turn, assuming I haven't utterly bored or confused you: can you think of a situation where a WKP has committed a TRANSGRESSION, and people had vastly different responses to it? What was your response, and why?

Hello there, stranger(s) ...

You may not remember me. I was this blogger/writer/psychologist who disappeared a month ago, buried under deadlines and copy edits and wild new project excitement.

I'm back!

How are you guys? I feel so disconnected, and have thought of you often in the past few weeks. How about if I give you my updates--and then you can give me yours?

Here are mine:

First round revisions for SCAN are DONE. Hoping the editor is pleased!

I have the just-about final cover for SANCTUM! It's so beautiful, and I'm absolutely thrilled. This cover process could not have been better, and I can't wait to unveil it! More details on that in the very near future.

Copy edits for SANCTUM are done! In fact, the ARCs are being printed! Meep! I'm both giddy and horrifically nervous.

I have some very exciting website/SANCTUM extra things in the works, and I will be talking about those later this month!

I AM GOING TO BE AT BEA at the beginning of June. Oh, man. When I got that call from my editor, I was (am) both terrified and over-the-moon excited. Amazon party at this place. Book signing. Having to wear pants and look presentable. Gah.

Also, this happened:

And this happened:
(Oscar Bestseller is an imprint of Mondadori)

That's mostly it for me. There are a few more things I'll talk about in separate posts. And wow--the happenings in the YA and general publishing community over the last few weeks! I'll be posting my thoughts on some of those in the near future.

But now--what's happening with you? Anything exciting to report?

To keep you entertained ...

Hi, folks. As we roll into April, I'm realizing I have deadlines for SCAN revisions looming, copy edits for SANCTUM, and a new project that ambushed me as the result of random tweets by Dawn Rae Miller and Becky Yeager (which ... just has to be saved for another post. It's either brilliant or a massively exciting time suck). So, I'm going to take a little hiatus.

In the meantime, please watch this two-minute video of Newt Gingrich introducing my awesome agent, Kathleen Ortiz, at a recent conference. Actually, the words belong to the ever-hilarious Lynne Kelly Hoenig, author of CHAINED, who introduced Kathleen this weekend at SCBWI Houston. She contacted a bunch of us in advance to ask for little tidbits about Kathleen, and I may have contributed a few things that embarrass Kathleen demonstrate what a dedicated professional she is (want to guess which ones? I'll fess up if people are interested ...).

I'll be around this month, possibly with a cover reveal or other cool stuff, but otherwise, I'll be pretty quiet. I'll still be visiting your blogs whenever I can, though! Good luck to those doing the A to Z challenge!

And of course, to keep you further entertained, I suggest you visit Lydia's blog for her Medical Monday posts and Laura's blog for her Mental Health Monday posts!

Maybe the hardest thing ever.

I have a lot of experience with behavior management. Mostly, I teach parents how to improve their young children's behavior. It's tremendously rewarding to watch parents, who come to me in distress, feeling like they can't control their own children, grow in their confidence and cunning.

Yeah, cunning.

Anyone with a small child knows it takes mad cleverness to outwit the little creatures. Also, it takes tremendous emotional self-control.

After (*coughcough*) years of practice, I can tell you which, of all the techniques I teach and coach parents to use, is the hardest to actually implement effectively.

Ignoring undesirable (yet relatively harmless) behavior.

All the other things, the praising positive behavior, spending quality time, setting clear expectations and limits, having a consistent schedule, giving good directions, even time out and consequencing ... all pale in comparison to the job of ignoring a child who is doing or saying something annoying. [By the way, ignoring doesn't mean truly tuning out. It means not showing OUTward signs of attending. That's where the emotional self-control comes in.]

This week, I saw the adult equivalent of that in a writers' forum. It was an argument that just went on and on and on and on and on and omg I could keep typing but you get my point. I was lurking, as I am wont to do, and kept staring at the screen and whispering "Ignore them. Don't respond." But then ... more posts! More arguing! This was one of those throwdowns where people haul out the popcorn-eating emoticon.
Isn't he cute? Anyway. The argument didn't even have to happen--it wasn't a debate about two worthy ideas or anything like that. It got to be about semantics and little turns of phrase that had caused the other person to feel offended (though nothing truly offensive was said ... at least for awhile). I was really struck by how neither side could walk away. They were even telling each other to walk away, but no one seemed able to do it, even when it became apparent that neither side was going to come away looking good.
I am fascinated by that kind of thing. It was so important to have the last word. And this is what happens when you attend to a kid's undesirable behavior, like if you yell at him or whatever--it basically never works out. Sometimes it does, temporarily, but usually the kiddo will up the ante, because that kid is a human and we seem to have that need. I always tell parents--the second you step into the ring, you've lost. If I had been sitting next to any of the posters on that forum, I would have said the same thing (right before they called the police to remove the strange, bespectacled woman from their abode).
Have you ever been in a situation like this, where you just couldn't walk away? Did you regret it later? Have you ever been able to walk away from a person who was provoking you? Was it in person or online? If online, was it harder or easier than being in person? And how did you manage to shut down your desire to respond, to get the last word?
And it's the last Wednesday of the month, so it's Deb's turn to answer this month's Sisterhood of the Traveling Blog question, which was about prologues. Lydia's answer can be found here.

On the Borderline.

I was gone last week. Sometimes that happens. Between the day job and the writing and the family ... blogging sometimes gets relegated to the things I wish I could do but can't. Only sometimes, though. But! I have a few updates:
I am working on Book 3 in The Guards of the Shadowlands series! My editor loved Book 2, and I'll be doing revisions on it soon, but for the moment I'm trying to crank out a first draft of Book 3. I'm hoping to have that draft by the beginning of June, but with everything else that's happening,  I wonder if that's too ambitious. I'll let you know. I received cover proofs for SANCTUM and oh, oh, oh, they are gorgeous. I can't wait to show you guys the cover. When I first opened the file, I started crying. There was just something incredibly emotional about seeing a visualization of my story concept. More updates on that very soon!And now ... today I thought I'd discuss yet another personality disorder. I've already posted about Schizoid Personality Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, and you can find my quick-and-dirty primer on personality disorders here.

Borderline personality disorder can be found in approximately 5-6% of the population (that's from the study I link to in this paragraph, which was a pretty thorough one, but other estimates put the prevalence at only 1-2%). A relatively recent epidemiologic survey study (of over 35,000 people) found that there's no gender difference in the prevalence of this disorder, which was previously thought to be more common in women. The study did show that the disorder is associated with more general mental and physical impairment in women, however.

The symptoms, according to the DSM-IV: Like with all personality disorders, BPD is a pervasive pattern (meaning it occurs across relationships, situations, and settings) of impairment. With BPD, that impairment occurs in interpersonal relationships, with self-image, emotion, and impulsivity. To be diagnosed with the disorder, someone must show five or more of the following symptoms:
"Frantic" efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships in which the person alternates between idealization and devaluation (often referred to as black-white thinking or splitting) Markedly and persistently unstable self image or sense of self (in other words, you like yourself one hour, and despise yourself the next, in a really extreme way) Impsulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (like spending, sex, alcohol/drug use, binge eating, or reckless driving) Recurrent suicidal behavior or self-mutilating behavior Intense mood reactivity (extreme emotions in response to situations) Chronic feelings of emptiness Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger Stress-related paranoia or dissociative symptoms Individuals diagnosed with this disorder account for a disproportionately high percentage of mental health care dollars. In other words, BPD causes a lot of impairment and suffering. Research shows that people who have been neglected or abused (particularly sexually abused) in childhood are more likely to be diagnosed with this disorder, especially if they have a problematic home environment and/or a certain kind of temperament (e.g., high levels of negative emotion).
source
Interestingly, a few psychiatrists have diagnosed fictional character Anakin Skywalker as having BPD, and even used him as a teaching example. There's a great article on that by Dr. Carolyn Kaufman here.

There is an effective treatment for BPD called Dialectical Behavior Therapy (there's no drug that helps, not really).The developer of DBT, Dr. Marsha Linehan (who, by the way, has had a long and productive career in psychology, and has helped a lot of people), disclosed recently that she was actually diagnosed with this disorder as a teenager--and if you want to read a truly inspirational story, go read this article about her. I promise you will not regret the time you spend on it.

Just a note about this disorder: the label "borderline" comes with a whole lot of stigma, so when I hear "I think this person has borderline personality disorder" (or worse: "I think this person is borderline"), I tend to interpret it as code for "I'm not sure how to help this person, so I'm using a label to neatly categorize him/her in a way that allows me to feel less guilty about it." (Hey, it's a complex code.) I'm definitely not saying all mental health clinicians do this, and I certainly don't believe any do it on purpose. But I am saying that my ears perk when I hear the phrase, and I start asking A LOT of questions.

In general, I think our diagnostic system is really useful, and helps us develop more effective treatments for problems that cause a lot of suffering. However, I think these terms are always at risk for being used in ways that dismiss complex human beings or add to the stigma, and of course, that bothers me. <end of rant>

Aaand because it's Monday, go check out Lydia's Medical Monday post, and Laura's Mental Health Monday post (zombies! yipes!).