Something that makes this extra difficult is the possibility that your family isn't sincerely trying to work things out. There is a possibility that they are really only interested in accepting boundaries THEY like and approve of, whether those boundaries make sense or not. In fact, they may be spending 0 time trying to understand anything, other than how things affect them and their wishes and goals. It's entirely possible that they agreed to, or wanted, this family therapy hoping that the T will be able to negotiate you back into being the person they wanted you to be.
I think this is definitely where they started, and basically said as much at the most recent session. They said they had been waiting for me to get back to being who I used to be, the "me" they all liked. The famT explained that was the unhealthy-me, and the way I am now is actually the healthy-me. I suspect they might be willing to make adjustments, so long as they can understand it in the sense of "blaming" it all on my aspergers and thinking of it as accommodations for my "handicaps." I'm
hoping for something more...for improved health for the whole family system, or at least for a few, specific relationships within that system, instead of being labeled as the "cause" of all the problems. But you're right...that might not be possible.
From there on, he reminded me, in interacting with her, that there was no point in worrying about "getting it right" from her point of view, because that, by definition, wasn't an option. ... Dealing with her was a bit like visiting an alternative version of reality, with hard to comprehend rules. It wasn't ME who was wrong, it was the way her rules were structured that made it seem that way. Once I accepted that, it made it easier.
It does feel like I enter an alternate reality when dealing with them. I grew up in that reality, and adopted its rules in building my understanding of the world and my algorithms for how to interact with the world. When I realized those algorithms weren't working for me, I started looking for outside information and changing my internal structures for external communications (e.g., boundaries, diversity, freedom, authenticity). And that's when I started having so many problems with my family, and I couldn't understand why they weren't delighted with the healthier dynamics I was learning. Then I realized we were functioning from two different paradigms, and I started trying to identify the parameters of each in contrast to the other. Thing is, I've noticed that when I'm around them, I have a very difficult time holding onto my own paradigm and instead fall into the old patterns of their paradigm...my logic falls apart because I get stuck assuming their paradigm is what defines "right". I have to get away from them to reconnect with my newer paradigm and start to see the flaws in the logic while I was with them. That was another reason I had asked for more written communication and less face-to-face communication, so I could think things through more freely and more carefully, but that didn't work out very well because even though they
agreed to it, they continued to resent it and resist it and blame me for problems that came of it.
Did you ever reach a point where you could be around your mom and not get sucked into her system of relationship?
Because, if a person can put up THAT good of a false front, how do you ever know who you're dealing with? (I asked my T. He says you don't and it's pretty hard to deal with them at all, beyond superficially.) Unfortunately, until someone's actually seen that happen, it's really hard to believe that it does or even that it can. So people tend to believe what I think of as "the false front".
How much of this is normal for all people, and how much of it is characteristic of my mom's mental issues? Doesn't everyone put up something of a false front with other people? Just scratch the surface of authenticity discussions, and you find everyone commiserating about how challenging it is to be your true self with other people, especially for introverts.
The recorded conversations my T has listened to...he's been pretty shocked at her switching within a single conversation. I struggled with that because it seems "normal" to me. I'm so used to her doing that, and I just track right along with her. Nothing said at any other time has any relevance in a logical back-and-forth with her...the only logic that is admissible at any given time is something she
just said or something completely consistent with her current frame of reference at that moment. Even something said earlier in the conversation, if I reference it, can completely derail the conversation because she either claims to not remember that part of the conversation or she says she meant something other than what I heard her say (even if I quote her own words). So I realized that conversations with her have
always been like that, and I just thought it was normal because I never had extended conversations about conflicts with anyone else (except my dad and step-dad, who were just as resistant to accountability).
But I've also experienced--from my perspective--a similar pattern in family therapy, where someone says one thing, but those words end up having a different meaning later in the conversation, even if I give a quote of what was actually said. But somehow
I'm the one misinterpreting because "aspies tend to interpret things too literally" (that was the famT's explanation for the discrepancies in her understanding vs my understanding of something my mom had said). So am I consistently misinterpreting what people say? Or is my mom switching between logic-stances (i.e., positions on an issue) based on her emotions at any given moment?
There's a difference between pointing out distorted thinking and shutting it down, I think. My T usually "points it out" by asking me questions to work through the thought process, so I eventually see the distortion for myself.
Yes, this is true. I think I overstated in saying that my T "shuts it down"...he calls attention to it by asking questions that are supposed to help redirect my thinking--usually, I already know where the distortions are or at least suspect them, but I'm trying to
express something in those statements and instead of
hearing me, he's redirecting. It
feels like he's shutting it down, because my tendency is to theoretically follow the logic to its natural conclusion before redirecting it, and then I have a sense of closure on it instead of it feeling unresolved. Maybe that's an aspie thing, where I can't leave a thought unthunk. Beyond that, there's also the need to allow chaotic logic in order to express the emotions underneath. The grief and hopelessness and loneliness and pain
have no other outlet, no other connection with the outside world. Can my T "hold space" for the cognitive distortions for a bit, knowing that I know how to identify the logical discrepancies, and instead of addressing them, actually empathize with them like he would with an NT's intense emotions?
Like he has to run through the same issue, different times, for different reasons, until a light finally comes on for me. Or, thinking some more, on my way home, it will suddenly dawn on me that he was trying to make a pretty valid point and I missed it at first.
In addition to all I just said about chaotic logic, there's still an aspect of my sessions that looks like this, too...where there's a principle I'm missing, and he states it out loud, and it hits home, but then I forget over time or fail to apply it in a new situation, and he states it again later so that I can keep working on learning it. This is where the real value of my sessions has come from so far, and it's good stuff.
But I feel so emotionally disconnected and isolated, and I guess the chaotic logic thing, and holding space for that, is something that I'm hoping might fill in that gap? The loneliness and emotional distance are overshadowing everything else at this point with my T. It doesn't seem to matter how good his insights are if I feel completely alone and ashamed of who I am during and after those sessions. I need some kind of
connection...something that helps me
feel the acceptance and respect he says that he has for me. And in this discussion here is where I'm realizing how those cognitive distortions have actually been my effort at reaching out to him in a way that is genuine for me...my native language...where I'm putting my internal experience out there in the only way I know how, and his response (and people's here and IRL) is often instead to point out how distorted it is.
If a client is sitting in his office crying, would he point out that her emotions are distorted? Or would he basically say, "Your sadness really makes sense in the context of your experiences. That sadness (or anger or fear or whatever) has something important to contribute here. Let's listen to it and process that information together." Could the same thing happen for a cognitive distortion? "This line of thinking really makes sense in the context of your experiences. Internally for you, it fits, and it has integrity of its own, and it has something important to contribute to our understanding of you and what you need. Let's explore it together and see what comes up." Typing that, I feel like crying. That's an entirely different approach to chaotic logic that might actually make sense to me in the middle of a chaotic storm inside, that wouldn't feel distancing, that would feel like he's hearing me and validating my internal experience.
And done well, it wouldn't end with destructive conclusions. I'm not impulsive. I'm not usually trapped in such distorted logic running on intense emotions alone, that I can't at least identify the distortions. I'm highly, highly conscious of the consequences of my behavior, to the point of being told repeatedly how over-responsible I am. I've repeatedly surprised my Ts at my ability to tackle a very difficult and painful task or part of a process or conversation or whatever, simply because I determined that was the "right" course of action, regardless of how hard it would be. My morals and ethics and standards for myself are intensely high, almost to the point of being problematic. Could there be some space in there for allowing some cognitive distortions to sit in the conversation long enough to explore what's underneath them, instead of having to challenge them as soon as they surface, just like he would do for an NT's difficult or painful emotions?
