If that comment had just used the abstract pattern: "(1) Abuser provides an overtly misleading narrative; (2) Abuser is confronted with evidence that contradicts the thrust of their narrative; (3) Abuser retreats to litigating the clear meaning of their original narrative", would you still see a point in trying to provide counterfactuals? The comment is simply trying to illustrate a pattern common to unproductive and/or abusive arguments; they not really offering you a law school hypo to work through.
1) Why is a therapist qualifying a narrative as misleading, or not? Is this productive therapy?
2) Why would a therapist confront a patient like this? Is the point of good therapy to say, "Ahah! You contradicted yourself. My diagnosis that you are eBPD is correct!"
3) Seems like the patient being qualified as an abuser and confronted by a person who's role is to help them, in this manner, would naturally retreat to a defensive posture.
So no, I don't see the point in trying to provide counterfactuals. Doesn't feel like productive therapy.
A good therapist is there to listen, without judgement.
Just my 2 cents tho. Obviously, feel free to disagree.
> Why would a therapist confront a patient like this?
Well one reason would be that self-contradiction is part of the behavior the patient is seeking to change, and making the patient aware of their behavior can help them recognize it.
"Confront" in a therapeutic context doesn't mean "gotcha!" It just means asking the patient to recognize something.
I see a misunderstanding here. The therapist is not qualifying the narrative as misleading or not and the therapist is not confronting the person. From my example it's either Joe, or the person they told this two who felt like they were lied to.
> Why is there confrontation at all? Why not simply ask for elaboration while withholding judgement? Maybe the person you are providing therapy to is still worked up from the events and unable to explain things clearly.
1. There is confrontation because the statements were to mutual acquaintances of Joe while Joe wasn't present. He just starts to notice that people are asking "let me know if you need help" and suggesting he go to AA meetings and such. Then sometime later he finds more out, the group is divided into people who believe Joe and those who think he is lying to cover up his drinking problem, and the person who stirred up all this trouble can claim guilt-free that they never lied.
2. Again this is about a pattern of behavior. Everyone speaks unclearly from time to time; bad communication is everywhere. This particular person would do it regularly and the miscommunication mysteriously seems to always themselves in a better light. Your original reply is a reasonable response to one specific occasion. It's also why people like this can maintain superficial relationships for so long. If you encounter it just a couple times a year you will think nothing of it and give them the benefit of the doubt.
The point is that you're arguing the metaphor rather than the point of the metaphor.
Your additions are bullshit. They add nothing but to somehow point at the poster and go "ah-ha". Because you're really just making the same point as the poster: Important details that change the story can be left out.
It doesn't matter which party in the hypothetical scenario is actually correct, only that one of them is not because they left out significant details.
