Tangenting

Tangenting and Derailing

by KellyNonBPD and Deedee

Kelly: I’ve been thinking lots about a particular pattern of BPD communications that I’ve noticed, and I’ve given it a name. I call it "Tangenting". I have noticed the Tangenting pattern before, but it became perfectly clear to me the other day in court when the opposition lawyer started using this communication pattern, and I recognized it as very familiar territory.

While there are as many sets of behaviors as there are BP’s, this communication pattern seems very common. Tangenting is simply the concept or behavioral pattern that happens like this: in the context of a conversation, when a solution is almost reached, the BP changes the subject, going sideways to a related, but different topic, and refuses to return to the original subject. They may even project, protesting loudly about not ‘finishing’ a side topic they are interested in whenever you wish to switch back to the original topic. Of course, this side topic is never resolved either.

Deedee: Imagine a pool table with many balls on it. Each ball has a topic written on it. As the conversation progresses, one ball ricochets off another ball, to a similar or related topic. First ball – original topic, let’s say, how to discipline the children - bounces off the almost solution - second topic - you (the NON) ALWAYS make me the bad guy with the kids - you never let me have any fun with them - etc.

Kelly: In this way, there is a pool ball moving all the time, making it look like "progress" or "movement", but no pool balls ever go into a pocket, and as soon as one pool ball puts another into motion, the first ball stops. Thus the chaos of the table of balls is maintained.

Deedee: There is some ‘BP-logic’ to the connection between the topics that, on the surface, appears rational. This second topic is usually one that has been recurring in the BP/NonBP relationship for some time, and almost always something that the BP blames the NonBP for. Many BP/NonBP relationships have a ‘list’ of things that are the fault of the NonBP. These make convenient side issues when a solution is too closely approached. The ‘we’d be okay if only you (the Non) would (insert change of behavior for the Non here). If you follow that discussion to it’s ‘logical’ end and come close to a solution or agreement, the ricocheting happens again to another topic. When you attempt to bring the discussion back to the original topic the BP will usually accuse you of ‘being too controlling’ or ‘you think the world revolves around YOU’, or similar ideas.

Kelly: If you get too close, or too insistent it can lead to derailing.

Deedee: Most BP’s have a need for or love of Chaos. In this Chaos, they can function as well as those they have confused. It might be the Non, but could be a parent, sibling, co-worker, friend or even a therapist. The "fog" (fear, obligation and guilt) of the BPD-NonBPD dynamic is thus maintained. If things are often in a state of chaos and confusion, those around the BP make allowances for the BP’s behavior.

Kelly: Tangenting seems to be a kind of defense mechanism to maintain the Chaos. BPs will tell us for hours how much they want to ‘fix’ the problem (usually by blaming the Non entirely.) However, this is most often projection. Most BPs don’t like to really solve problems as that reduces Chaos. If the Chaos that they so strive to maintain were reduced, someone might find them out, if the problem at hand (or any problem) was actually solved.

Tangenting doesn’t often occur during high stress arguments. In a high stress argument, reasonable solutions are not approached closely enough that Tangenting is required to protect the chaos. No, Tangenting occurs most often when both the BP and the Non are calm and trying to have a productive conversation.

Deedee: Whether BP’s ever try to have productive conversations is a point for debate. However, they do act as if they are trying to be productive sometimes.

Kelly: Tangenting can occur even in situations with professionals, such as mediators and counselors. Even with a professional communications facilitator, resolving issues was so painful to my BPSO that she would change the subject even in these highly controlled environments. If a homework assignment, an agreement, a compromise, or a new strategy of communication were proposed, there was an inevitable switch to one of my problems or to somewhere else.

For example, in one four hour long mediation session, we had worked out a financial settlement that was very favorable to her. In the end, she could not overcome her abandonment issues enough to allow this to go forward. She then threw custody into the mix. It had been agreed that custody would not be discussed at all. But she put it in at the end as she knew it disrupt the situation and end the mediation, leaving the issue unresolved. (The issue was finally resolved fairly by a judge.)

In more mundane settings, if a solution to a problem were proposed, it would never actually be agreed upon. Rather, the discussion would switch quite unexpectedly at the last minute to (insert favorite ‘Blame the Non Statement’ here)

Deedee: A second type of Tangenting is a bit different and is called Derailing. As in ‘take the train (the relationship) off the tracks and intentionally try to wreck it’. The scenario goes like this: Sit down with BPSO and attempt to discuss an area of difficulty and come to a mutual agreement. The discussion goes well and you may be surprised and pleased. Once you are close to an agreement, BPSO then ricochets to a second topic, which is often a ‘hot spot or danger zone topic’. Again the topic is usually one in which somehow something that you (the Non) have done, are thinking of doing or the BP believes you have done or are thinking of doing. The rationality of the accusation, despite any information to the contrary, is irrelevant. Then the BP escalates that topic to it’s worst, going into a rage. This may end in: "I’m leaving you for good, or I’m outta here, or you (the Non) get out." It seems like the BPSO is intent on ending the relationship right that instant, like a train running off it’s tracks.

Kelly: Derailing can also just derail the conversation, rather than the entire relationship. If enough anger is produced, the original ‘solution’ that seemed to be agreed to is quickly forgotten.

Deedee: Derailing can be dangerous if there is a history of physical abuse, or physically risky behavior. The BPSO may then go out and do something they’ve wanted to do for some time and feel very justified in doing so. This can include gambling, abuse of credit cards, having an affair, reckless driving, falling off the addictions wagon, physical abuse of themselves or others, emotional abuse or threats of any of the above.

Kelly: Therapists understand Derailing better than Tangenting. This may be because in the context of a discussion that is controlled by a third party, there is a limit to how many times Tangenting can be used effectively without the therapist calling them on it. Whether a conversation with a therapist is more productive than one on your own depends on the therapist and the BP. I never felt that conversations in a therapeutic environment were very productive, but your mileage may vary.

Deedee: The best response we can suggest is that once the Tangenting or Derailing behavior occurs that the Non enforce a boundary and end the discussion.

Kelly: Of course, the boundary must be set first or you will appear to be changing the rules in the middle of the conversation. It’s best to leave unpredictable rule changing up to your BPSO.

Deedee: The other suggestion is one that we both have used with some success: adapt and change your pattern too fast for the BPSO to catch. If it looks like you have an agreement close, take notes and get them to sign it immediately. No further discussion; no further ‘fine tuning’. It can work on some occasions. If the Non can adapt faster than the BPSO can ricochet, there may be some agreement.

Kelly: Yes, this is particularly effective when there are third parties involved and the BP is trying to look good for them. With witnesses, it is harder for the BP to come back later and say that they never agreed. Getting things written down with witnesses is also an effective approach, especially in a legal context.

BPD411 Home - Services - Resources - Partners - Contact Us - Mailing List

Disclaimer: The information on this site (http://www.bpd411.org) is based on personal experiences of the authors and members of our e-mail mailing list. It is NOT meant to replace professional advice or take the place of counseling, therapy or additional personal research.