Author: Aceso Under Glass

When You Call a Suicide Hotline and Things Go Poorly

For a long time now I’ve wanted to talk about the problematic side of crisis chat.  I sometimes see my co-volunteers badly mishandle things, and it feels dishonest pitching crisis chats as resource without acknowledging the problems.  I held back partly because I would be violating two different people’s privacy if I gave any examples (one of whom is protected by HIPAA), and partly out of fear that I would discourage someone who needed it from reaching out.  But what I realized is that an overly rosy picture gaslights people who have had bad experiences at a hotline.  A lot of our callers believe nothing will ever help, or everything bad that happens is their fault, or a just punishment for their moral failings.  If you tell them the hotline always helps, and they catch a bad call, it reinforces the feelings the feelings driving them to suicide to begin with.

So what you need to know is: if you call a suicide or crisis line and feel worse afterwords, it’s usually their fault, not yours.  Suicide hotline volunteers are human beings with their own set of strength and weaknesses.  Every one of them goes into their shift hoping to make a difference, but on any given day you might catch a trainee, or someone for whom your story is too familiar and triggers projection from their own life, or your story is not familiar enough and they can’t work through the cultural differences.  None of these are reflections of you.

That’s not the only reason people feel worse after calling, of course.  Often the call is the first acknowledgement of how bad things are, after months or even years of numbness. There’s no way to make that not hurt.  But if your call deviates significantly from Hollis Easter’s description of a suicide hotline call, that is a good sign something has gone wrong on the specialist’s end.

What can you do in this situation?  Hanging up is certainly an option, and not one to be discounted.  But if you have the reserves, I encourage you to tell the specialist what is going wrong, as specifically as possible (“No, that’s not what happened”, “No, that’s not how I feel”, “Yes, I’m having thoughts of suicide but I’m not going to act on them in the next 24 hours so can we please talk about my mom”*).  If it works, great.  If it doesn’t, you can leave knowing you tried, and you’ve practiced asserting a boundary.  It’s not what you called for, and you shouldn’t have to do it, but it can be a surprisingly satisfying second best.

Or maybe that won’t make you feel better at all.  That could happen too.  But if it does, I hope that this entry lets you know that it’s not your fault, and leaves open the possibility of trying again later.

*This is a balancing act.  Some callers are genuinely pills-in-the-hand suicidal and we take a fairly aggressive stance at talking them out of it.  A lot of other people are having suicidal thoughts with no intention to act on them, and we want to be a safe place for them to acknowledge those feelings as we talk about the actual problem.  If a particular call is ambiguous, we have to default to suicide intervention.  But if you can promise us you’re not going to kill yourself in the next 24 hours, or even just for the duration of the call, we can relax.

In fact, figuring out what to talk about in general is a tricky problem.  Some people need to talk about the patterns in their life.  Some need to talk about a specific incident.  Some need to talk about feelings without regard to external events.  Some need to be walked through breathing exercises so they can stop chasing their feelings in circles.  If you know which one of these you are, tell us, we are overjoyed to act on the information.

Intelligence vs. Effort, Acknowledgement vs. Praise

Everyone knows you’re supposed to praise children for effort, not intelligence.  Praising intelligence makes them risk averse and fragile in the face of failure, praising effort makes them harder-working and resilient.  How could any caring parent or teacher do anything but change their praise to be 100% efforts-based?

Here are some things that bother me about that framing:
  1. It’s an absolute, rather than relative to our current position.  It’s entirely possible that kids need a mix of both kinds praise, and we’re just swinging the pendulum from too much of one to too much of the other.
  2. As evidence for this, I present the fact that when East Asian kids despair-quit, they often frame it as “I’m not hard working enough”, which I’m not convinced is any better than “I’m not smart enough”
  3. Which brings up the important point that the parallel of “you are smart” is not “you must have worked very hard” but “you are so hard working”, so the comparison is not just intelligence vs. effort but innate characteristic vs. conscious choice.  I have no problem believing those have very different effects on children.
  4. What if the child didn’t work hard?  They either believe you, in which case they won’t understand what is happening when they are faced with something actually requiring hard work, or they won’t, in which case you’re eroding the child’s trust in you in the name of increasing achievement.  Good job science.
  5. More generally, framing everything as a result of effort is gaslighting above- and below- average children alike.  Some children get things faster than other children.  Refusing to acknowledge that could easily be interpreted as being smart or dumb is taboo, which is incredibly destructive on many levels.
  6. One of which is that it denies you and the child information that should inform their schooling.  All kids do need to learn to work hard, and that is better achieved by increasing difficulty until they find something they struggle with, rather than insisting they pretend whatever is in front of them is challenging.  It’s almost cargo-cult.
  7. This has the faint whiff of my mom’s ban on coloring books, because they limited creativity.  It is true that coloring requires less creativity than drawing, but that very factor makes them better for practicing hand-eye coordination.    Given that I’ve always overflowed with creativity but at age 13 got state-funded occupational therapy to make my handwriting legible to myself, I think a little coloring would have been okay.  Hell, there’s a trend right now for adults to color because life is hard and coloring is soothing.  Not everything needs to be about bringing out a child’s potential.
What I would rather see is success at school de-emphasized, all children exposed to a wide variety of activities so they experience being great and terrible at things,  and adults accurately reflect back what they did.  Sometimes that will be “you worked really hard”, sometimes it will be “you were really creative” and sometimes that will be “looks like you got that one really quickly.”  Curriculum would be adjusted so that all kids experience a range of challenges, without the level of activity that challenges them being given any moral weight.

I Swallowed A Bug

Here are the arguments in favor of bug eating:
  1. Relative to traditional meats (chicken, cow, pig, sheep), bugs require many fewer resources. (This and all future comparisons will be done on a per unit edible protein basis, rather than per unit animal weight)
  2. Bugs have more trace nutrients and less fat.
  3. We care less about bug suffering than chordate suffering.  Possibly we don’t care at all.
Here are the arguments against bug eating:
  1. Bugs are gross.
Here is where 28 years of being unable to digest food becomes a super power.  Most food and essentially all protein sources strike me as gross.  So bugs aren’t that much worse than any other source, and I have a lot of practice overcoming disgust in order to eat.
My friend Brian held a bug eating night.  He explains the rationale and practicalities pretty well, so I’ll restrict myself to talking about my personal experience, which can be summed up as “a million times better than I thought it would be.”
For background: I’m trying to train myself to eat meat.  This quarter I’ve taken to cutting off slivers of salmon (for the omega-3s) and more recently duck (which is a wonderful combination of delicious when dead and malicious towards conspecifics while alive, which makes it feel a little more moral) and sauteing them until they’re charred through.  When I say slivers, I mean slivers.  I’ve been working on duck for a week and I eat at most two fingernail-clipping sized bits, prepared and eaten separately.  For salmon I might do as much as 1/2 the volume of my pinky. I have small hands.
I pre-committed to eating at least one cricket, but that was all.  The other bug was supposed to be waxworms, and waxworms are squishy.  I don’t do squishy even when it’s not bugs.  And I was going to be extremely proud of myself for just that one cricket.  Eating a new anything is a big deal for me, and it takes time to adjust.
When the moment came I ate several (along with some HCl pills), and walked away, supremely satisfied in myself for trying a new thing and not freaking out about it.  And then I started getting that itch to eat more, that means the thing in front of me has some trace nutrient I’m short on.    So I did.  And I asked for some to take home.
I got off easy on the waxworms because they were burnt so badly they ended up not serving them.  But there were mealworms.  Mealworms were served as taco fillings, but as it turns out I’d rather eat a bug than a taco (the variation in textures freaks me out).  Mealworms were wetter and more fibrous, so you had to chew them more (although don’t skimp on chewing crickets, catching a leg in your throat feels gross).  The had their own taste, which I didn’t care for at first but could probably grow to be okay with.  I think I like it better than chicken (aka bad tofu) and beef, but not as much as duck or pork, and by pork I mean bacon.
At the end of the night I had a slight stomach ache.  I’d brought HCl but no digestive enzymes, and my stomach was clearly struggling to keep up.  But I get that with all new foods and any significant amount of protein, so I don’t hold it against the bugs.
Some of ease of eating was undoubtedly the environment.  Brian, John, and their blogless roommates have a pre-existing tradition of communal meals that I love, and that makes eating easier.  it was also supremely gratifying to have other people share my attitude that the food in front of us was gross but we were going to eat it anyway.  Constantly being the only one that thinks that gets really lonely.  I flinched a little bit when I went to eat the cricket leftovers this morning.  But then I ate them, and it was fine.  Definitely better than duck, and duck is delicious.
Honestly, the biggest down side is that for all that bugs take many fewer resources than chordate meat, they are currently much more expensive.  One pound of edible cricket is ~$13/pound, which is as much as the grass fed free range humanely cuddled duck I get at the fancy grocery store.  I could probably grow them at home at essentially no cost, since they can live on food waste I would otherwise toss, but I’m not yet committed enough to deal with the noise.  But even at this price I plan on eating more bugs.

Any straw that doesn’t break your back must be weightless.

Toxoplasma gondii is a single-cell parasite usually associated with cat feces, although undercooked meat is the more common form of infection.  For years, everyone knew that T. gondii was totally harmless unless a pregnant woman caught it at a very particular stage in the pregnancy, at which point it caused miscarriage or devastating birth defects.  I probably learned about this younger than most because this was my parents official reason for not letting me have a cat while they were trying to conceive.  But eventually I got my cat and never thought about it again*, because I was not a pregnant woman.  While the concept was gross, 20% of the US and 30-60% of the world has it, so clearly it’s harmless.

Then science began to poke around a bit more.  Toxoplasmosis causes pretty drastic behavior changes in rat, as demonstrated by this adorable video of rats attempting to cuddle a cat…

…which is actually a video of a paramecium attempting to get this cat to eat the rats so it can sexually reproduce in the stomach.  Enjoy that mental image.  If it can have such a strong effect in rats, might it have some measurable effect in humans as well?

Yup.

First, T. gondii was always considered dangerous in immunocompromised individuals (e.g. AIDS patients). But it gets worse. Research revealed associations between T. gondii and lower IQ in children (which may reverse with treatment), suicide attempts, decreased novelty seeking, car accidents,  lower IQ  in men, greater friendliness and sexuality in women , and perhaps 20% of all schizophrenia.**

Here is what I think is going on.  The human body is incredibly robust.  It can take a number of hits and show only a very minor decrease in function.  But if you already have enough hits against you (HIV, age, genetic predisposition to schizophrenia), it can have a big effect.  Or maybe it will do nothing, but it uses up one of your hits, so when the next blow comes, you don’t have the energy to fight it.    This is why the phrase “only dangerous in immunocompromised individuals” bugs me so much.  First, everyone who doesn’t die of trauma lives at the mercy of their immune system.  Second, immune function is not bimodal.  There’s lots of people that don’t have AIDS, but do have, I don’t know, multiple chronic complex infections in their jaw requiring extensive surgery to remove.  Or they’re poor and have substandard housing and nutrition.  Or they pick up a second parasite while camping.

Telling these people- who don’t have AIDS or leukemia, but aren’t functioning at optimal either- that T. gondii, or any other aggravator, can’t affect them is like telling a working-poor person that ATM fees can’t hurt her because she’s not homeless.  It’s great that the fees are a rounding error to you, but don’t discount the cost they impose on others

*Which turned out to be totally justified.  Owning a cat is not a risk factor for toxoplasmosis, and I happen to have been tested as part of a larger parasite screen last year and am certifiably toxoplasmosis free.

**A lot of these studies are associational, which I usually frown upon.  I find it more valid in this case because causational studies in animals show similar effects.

…wait a second

We all know most genetics v. environment* research is done using a mix of monozygotic (identical twins), dizygotic (fraternal) twins , and non-twin siblings, reared apart or together.   The idea was that monozygotic twins share 100% of their DNA, and dizygotic and non-twins shared 50%, so you could tease out the difference between environment and genetics that way.

The first problem was that identical vs. not identicalness was originally assessed based entirely on looks.  But not all genetically identical twins look alike, and not all twins that look alike are genetically identical.  Mislabeling this makes genetics look less influential than they are.

The second problem is that this discounts nine months in utero as an environment, when it is probably the most influential environment you will ever be in.  Some (though not all) studies use dizygotic twins. vs non-twin siblings to measure the affect of a shared uterus, but there’s a lot of confounding variables there.  Worse, 75% of monozygotic twins are monochronic (sharing a placenta), and an exceptional few are monoamniotic (share an amniotic sac) (dizygotic twins never share a placenta or amniotic sac).  Monoamniotic pregnancies are rare and dangerous so we don’t know much about the twins, but monochronic twins are more alike than dichronic-monozygotic twins, despite the fact that sharing a placenta is more like to result in unequal distributions of blood, which can have huge effects.

The third problem is that not-identical -> 50% shared genetics was a reasonable assumption to make in the 1950s, or even the 1980s, but it’s not true. You have a 50% chance of sharing any given chromosome with a full sibling, which means your average relatedness is indeed 50%, but the total percent in common could be anything between 0 and 100**.  With genetic testing as cheap as it is, there’s no excuse not to test study subjects for exact relatedness.

*A stupid framing to begin with

**With complications from crossing over between chromosomes.  The probability math on this is straightforward but the actual calculations are so ugly because it depends on which chromosome crosses over and where.

Depression in video games

Okay, apparently psychology and video games is my niche and I should just accept that.

If you ask most gamers for a game about depression they’d say Depression Quest*, partly because it has depression right in the name and possibly because one of the designers, Zoe Quinn, has been targeted for massive harassment.  DQ is the world’s most morose choose your own adventure novel.  The descriptions of depression and they choices it leaves you are very accurate, but I left the game thinking “Boy, I am good at fighting depression.  Why don’t actual depressed people do as well as I did on this game?”  Which is of course massively unfair, and I assume not what the developers were going for.  I know other people who have liked it a lot, and it’s short and free, so certainly give it a go if you’re at all interested, but I don’t have much to say about it.

And then there is The Cat Lady.

The Cat Lady is a horror game.  If you hate being scared, or don’t want to see violence, sexualized violence, and gore, you should not play it.  I found it well done, artistically merited, and not exploitative, but it is pretty gruesome.

I like horror video games but no genre misses its mark more often.  Many games are never scary.  Of those that are, most rely purely on jump scares, which make me twitchy but not scared- the opposite of what I want.*  The best part of being scared is when it is over.  Of games that are successfully atmospherically scary at first, most are not by the end. You’re too used to the mechanics, you’ve acclimated to the monsters, your brain has noticed none of this is actually happening.  This can ruin the experience.

BEGIN SPOILERS (not scary)

The tempo of The Cat Lady can roughly be described as spooky-creepy-CREEPY-creepy-TERRIFYING-weird-scary-spooky-….and then every scene is less creepy than the one before.  You could call this a failing, in the pattern of many horror games before it.  Or you could call it a brilliant use of the mechanics of a game to induce a particular psychological state in the user,** in this case with the goal of demonstrating the improvement in the main characters psychological state as the game goes on.  The game starts with her suicide.  It ends with her finding her voice, making a friend, and standing up for what she thinks is right.  It felt very organic.  The player is given a lot of choice in Susan’s dialogue.  At the beginning I chose the most withdrawn and passive options, and at the end I chose the most active and courageous ones, because it felt like that’s what the character would do.  The lessening of terror felt like Susan coming into her own.

END SPOILERS

The negatives are mostly mechanical- for an atmospheric narrative game, the lack of autosave is puzzling.  The inability to manually save during dialogue, which can go 15 minutes at a stretch, is unacceptable.  The lack of even quicksave, meaning I must hit three buttons and then type the name of a new save, and do it compulsively because you never know if I’m about to crash or hit another 15 minute unsavable section, would be unforgivable even if the game hadn’t crashed twice at the same spot.***  The game is very talky, and it’s paced badly.  It was a very poor choice to block saves between chapters, and then start every chapter with a bunch of exposition, because it meant I was leaving the game in medeas res, rather than at natural down beats.  The talky bits were sometimes very interesting but sometimes very painful to get through- a lot of plumbing through dialogue trees to get the option you already know you’re going to use.

Would I recommend this to a person who wanted to know what depression felt like?  Only very a specific person.  You’d have to be a horror fan or you’d never get past the second chapter.  And if you don’t naturally get the genre I’m not sure it would have the same effect.  Would I recommend it to a depressed person looking to see their experiences reflected in art?  Same caveats, with possibly a wider net, since depressed people will more naturally get the depression in the beginning.  The writer/designer apparently has personal experience with depression, and it shows.  Would I recommend it to someone who likes horror games?  Yes, definitely, without reservation.  It is so good.

As a side note, I think is another piece of evidence for my evolving hypothesis about women and horror stories.  I don’t what the statistical distribution is because I watch a very nonrandom subset, but in a world where most major movies don’t even pass the Bedschel test, horror films address a lot of “women’s issues”.  Ginger Snaps and Jennifer’s Body are about female competitiveness as they come into sexual power, Mama is about being raised by a mentally ill parent, and Drag Me To Hell is about an eating disorder.  And now The Cat Lady is about depression, and the way depressed middle aged women are treated by society.

*There is a very slight chance they’d say Shadow of the Colossus, which is an excellent game, but any connection to depression is buried deep in metaphor.

MORE SPOILERS

*I discovered something interesting when I played Condemned.  Originally the contrast on my TV was so  bad I couldn’t see enemies (which, for maximum discomfort, are crazed homeless people) until they’d actually attacked me.  This was startling, but not scary at all.  I then upped the contrast so it was theoretically possible for me to see enemies ahead of time, although they were still mostly hidden.  This was much scarier.  It’s like I don’t feel fear unless something is preventable through my own actions.  Ironically the fact that The Cat Lady is a puzzle game, and thus you are never on a clock and can only die when the story says you’re definitely going to die, makes it easier for me to be scared.

**Papers, Please is the only other game I think of that does this.  It takes the mundanity of a lot of casual games and makes it a manifestation of working a soul crushing job.  I was impressed with them too.

***Non-gamers: I know it sounds like I’m overreacting, but I’m not.  Imagine if you had to walk to another room to save your place in a book on every page.

Book Review: The Child Catchers

I’ve used the words “calling” or “purpose” a few times on this blog now.  I’m not Christian, but I was raised in a Christian home in a Christian culture, and my concept of a calling is clearly steeped in that tradition.

So for me, reading The Child Catchers (Kathryn Joyce) was mostly a cautionary tale about letting a Call override the rest of your brain.  Step by step, Joyce takes you through how a large group of people who fervently believed they were doing not only the right thing, but the best thing, the thing they had been called by their God to do, destroyed the lives of countless children and ripped about whole societies.  Some of it came from privilege/White Man’s Burden beliefs, but some of it was just that they had bad or insufficient information.

On a practical level, non-foster-care adoption seems to have the trouble as the pharmaceutical industry: we wanted something (lifesaving medicine, care for abandoned children) but didn’t want to pay for it, so we handed the bill to the deepest pocket around (pharma companies, adoptive parents), and then we got mad when the system inevitably bent towards their point of view.  A lot of the problems in adoption stem from that most systems match a parent with a specific child and then start verifying if the child is available to be adopted.  Or the adoptive parents start picking up the mother’s expenses before birth.  The very impulse that will make these prospective parents good parents- the belief that this is their child– is incredibly destructive at this stage, and the fact that they’re required to invest a lot of money makes it worse.  It inevitably leads people to view searches for biological extended family as obstacles, or pressure a birth mother to “keep her word” and surrender the infant.  Even if they haven’t bonded with that specific child (which I would find worrying), they may not have the money to try again.  That’s just not fair.

Rwanda has chosen a different tactic.  International families go on a waiting list.  The Rwandan government checks all potentially eligible children, which involves looking for biological family who might take in the child and making sure the birth mother wasn’t coerced, or finding an unrelated local family that would like to adopt.  By the time an international adoptive family is contacted, the chances of something going wrong are minuscule.

Callings are important, but they need to be reality checked.  That might be my new Effective Altruism slogan.

Cutting

Cutting/self-harm comes up in crisis chat even more than borderline personality disorder, in part because cutting is common among both BPD patients, depressed teenagers, and depressed/anxious young adults. I have a lot of thoughts on cutting.

First, it is obvious to me that the shame around cutting is a million times worse for cutters than the actual cutting. I talk to so many kids terrified to reach out for help because people have or will judge them, shame them, or commit them for cutting. Even if they hide it perfectly, they know, and they know their support network doesn’t know, and they will never rid themselves of the fear that the support would be withdrawn if they knew.

Luckily my program gets that, and we’re at least allowed to be chill about cutting.  It doesn’t trigger an active rescue call, we’re explicitly supposed to reassure them it’s not shameful and we’re not judging, and we’re even allowed to praise it not as an alternative to suicide*, but as a coping mechanism that removes the necessity of it.

We are not, however, allowed to suggest it as an alternative to other popular coping mechanisms for the same problems, even to visitors already doing both. This confuses me.  Mental illness often leads to self medication through substance abuse**, eating disorders, social isolation, or simple inability to function in the world.  Done safely  (sterile instruments, proper care afterwords, incisions in safe areas- all of which can be taught) , cutting leads to… cuts.  Maybe some scarring if it’s really bad.  Cutters often report greater feelings of cope after cutting, and are able to invest that cope in other therapist approved things, like eating or seeking out a support network.

Not to mention the things you need to do to prevent people from self harming are incredibly intrusive (because everyone has finger nails), at a time when people most need to feel like their autonomy is respected.  Thin is a documentary about an eating disorder clinic, but a lot of the patients had self-harmed in the past (full disclosure: it’s been two years since I watched this and details might be fuzzy).   I’m sure the clinic had the best of intentions, but the section on the methods they used to prevent cutting left me screaming “do you not realize anorexia is about control?  I understand the feeding tube can’t wait till they get better, but is preventing cutting really worth triggering them like that?”.

In my perfect world, bystanders would treating cutting the same way participants do: as an external representation of an inner ugliness.  And then they would work on resolving that ugliness, rather than pushing away the evidence of it.  In a less perfect but still better than this world, cutting would qualify for the same harm reduction plans that drug addiction does, with health facilities providing sterile blades, bandages, and instruction of safe places to cut.  And then people would notice it is way, way less harmful than heroin or methadone*** and it would lose the stigma and now we’re back to my perfect world

*We’re allowed to praise a lot of things as alternatives to imminent suicide, up to and including later suicide.  It’s not often that “Why not see a doctor first and kill yourself if that doesn’t work out?”  is the right thing to say, but it’s not never either.

**Nothing like a depressant to chase the blues away

***Which is in fact significantly more dangerous than heroin, but less fun.

PS: If a patient or loved one of yours is cutting and you don’t know what to say, I have found “For a lot of people cutting is about releasing stored emotions.  Is it like that for you?”  to be a productive question.

The Real Reason Ebola Should Scare You

Ebola is not that contagious.  It’s easier to catch than HIV*, but way less than the flu, or norovirus**, aka stomach flu.  One of the Ebola nurses flew on two planes before she was quarantined, and so far no one has reported catching it.  Do you know how good planes are at transmitting illnesses?  Extremely.  So for me, the scary part of learning that two nurses caught Ebola while tending to a patient is that if their/the hospital’s hygiene was so lax as to allow transmission of Ebola (even after they elevated the hygiene procedures), what the hell else are the transmitting?

Greg Mitchell doesn’t give an exact answer, but he does have a body count: 2000 people died from hospital acquired infections last week.  So if everyone could redirect their panic from the scary African disease to the nice WASPy ones and start designing emergency rooms that aren’t festering petri dishes, that would be great.

*Although because HIV has a long dormant period, a person with HIV will on average infect more people than a person with Ebola.

**I am still mad at norovirus almost killing me in 2006.

Borderline Personality Week: What success looks like

Around the same time I was reading Buddha and the Borderline, I found a post on reddit by another model graduate of BPD treatment, which provides me another lovely BPD example I can use with violating someone’s privacy.  (To the best of my ability to determine based on self report on the internet…) This woman is doing everything right.  She did all the therapy, she is trying to keep from hurting others, she recognizes she has a problem and that it is her responsibility to make it right.  And what it has gotten her is a relationship in which any disagreement they have is assumed to be her fault, and any feeling she has is a problem.  DBT has let her stop listening to false alarms constantly ringing in her head, at the cost of ignoring the genuine alarms.  So even though her issue (3+ years of dating, woman wants to commit, man dragging his feet) is hilariously cliched on r/relationships, she, and everyone else, view it through the lens of “I must contain my unreasonable desires.”

[It’s also pretty instructive to look at the comments of that post.  It is abundantly clear that for a large subset of commenters, there is nothing she could say after the word “borderline” that would make them take her side.    I can’t prove she’s actually as controlled as she claims she is, but what borderlines do is usually not so much lie as convey their emotional truth, from which you can usually reverse engineer what actually happens.  This woman is objective as hell ]

I see a lot of this in chat as well.  The uncontrolled frequent flyer borderlines get all the attention, but I regularly talk to people who have done all the therapy and been very successful and what it means is that when they dysregulate, they contain the damage.  Which is much better than not containing it, but doesn’t make the dysregulation itself less painful.    Of course, I have a pretty biased sample- maybe lots of people genuinely do get better and I don’t talk to them because they never visit chat- but I would bet money there’s a substantial population like this.  And I hope we eventually find something better for them.