As we know, people with traits of avoidant personality type are said to have an avoidant attachment style formed in childhood. When faced with obstacles, sometimes they are not addressed - the problems are ignored instead and this can cause trouble later.
The popular wisdom on traumatically abusive relationships, for example with people who appear to show many signs of narcissistic personality disorder, is to cut them off and go 'no contact'. But this seems to be a perfect pretext for people who are unable to negotiate and communicate and assert their needs to simply avoid the problem.
It's a very seductive solution for people with trauma to walk away from the world and bury themselves in escapist addictions from alcohol to 'spiritual bypass' to too much hard work.
How do we know when avoidance is right or wrong? There seems to be almost zero discussion about this issue amidst all the criticism of avoidance and the recommendation of avoidance these days.
I would like to open discussion about this paradox.
The popular wisdom on traumatically abusive relationships, for example with people who appear to show many signs of narcissistic personality disorder, is to cut them off and go 'no contact'. But this seems to be a perfect pretext for people who are unable to negotiate and communicate and assert their needs to simply avoid the problem.
It's a very seductive solution for people with trauma to walk away from the world and bury themselves in escapist addictions from alcohol to 'spiritual bypass' to too much hard work.
How do we know when avoidance is right or wrong? There seems to be almost zero discussion about this issue amidst all the criticism of avoidance and the recommendation of avoidance these days.
I would like to open discussion about this paradox.