After decades of work in fairly traditional organizations, some with non-profit and some with for-profit tax statuses, I chose to radically change my career and my life. In particular, after roughly 20 years in executive roles in for profit contexts, I came to realize some uncomfortable truths. To be clear, profit is not inherently bad. In fact, the profit motive is central to economic growth and profit from one business or investment becomes the capital for future investment. Risk taking and hard work merit reward. The problem is that it is often possible to make more money, at least in the short term, by doing things that cause harm and/or are ethically questionable than by committing steadfastly to a set of consistent values and the collective good.
Over time, the dissonance caused by those truths became personally untenable. Of course, that is not true of all the businesses that I had leadership roles in. However, there are certain ownership models for which the core purpose is to generate as great a return on investment as possible, even if that comes at a cost to integrity and/or other stakeholders. Some of the things I came to understand include:
From an ownership perspective, my job was primarily to make wealthy people more wealthy.
I dedicated significant time, effort, skill, and commitment to things that often mattered more to other people than to me.
At the individual level, whatever profit is realized from a business venture or investment is rarely enough. If there is a way to generate five times ROI vs. four times ROI, investors will typically choose that way even if there is collateral damage.
Relatedly, very rarely is there enough discipline among investors or directors to sacrifice any amount of personal profit for other meaningful gains—long term revenue growth, mission, collective good—even innovation). Short term almost always trumps long term when profit is in question.
Owners, investors, shareholders, directors, etc. are usually much better at saying the right thing than doing the right thing, particularly if the right thing has any material cost to it.
My desire to be “successful” and well regarded contributed to my own myopia and allowed me to occasionally be complicit in decisions and actions that were not aligned with professed organizational values, let alone my own values.
In retrospect, my naivete was stunning. I actually believed that focusing on things that were good for the organization and good for a broad range of stakeholders over time would be appreciated and rewarded. What I learned was that could only be true as an aside if I also overachieved the metrics that made key people more money—and usually in a short time frame.
At some point, the dissonance indeed became untenable, and I had to make what turned out to be some fairly radical changes for my own well being. I began by doing some deep personal work related to values and what I wanted to be true going forward. It started simply enough by shifting from “What is my next job?” to “What do I want to be true in my life and what role will my work play in achieving that truth?”
What I also learned is that if you are willing to make compromises with foundational things in your life, then you suddenly have many, many options open to you. For example, once I was willing to make much less money, live in a smaller home, give up the “status” of executive roles, etc., going back to school (for the fourth time) to complete a graduate degree in Clinical Mental Health became not only viable, but desirable. That decision turned out to be more aligned with what I want to be true in my life than any other professional decision I’ve ever made. It came with substantial sacrifices, but it not only relieved me of the cognitive and affective dissonance I was previously experiencing, it replaced it with a level of congruence that is grounding and sustaining.
Lastly, I still think about the cases in which my decisions and actions were not aligned with my values. I did not bring my best self to those situations and, as a result, was at some level complicit. However, that “failure” now serves as motivation to do better—to make the world at least a little better off as a result of my efforts. To anyone who was harmed by decisions that I did not resist and/or participated in, I am deeply sorry.
The basis of addiction is training the brain’s reward system to release dopamine (a feel-good neurotransmitter) based on a repeated stimulus. That could be an exogenous (outside the body) chemical such as alcohol or THC or cocaine or it could be a repeated behavior that results in the release of dopamine such as gambling or sex or social media scrolling on a smart phone. The takeaway here is that all roads lead to dopamine.
The problem with repeated use of substances or engagement in behaviors in pursuit of dopamine is that, over time, the same amount of the substance or behavior results in the need for more dopamine, which requires either more frequent use/activity, greater potency, or both. This applies to both substances and behaviors. Not only do we have to “up the ante” to achieve a similar level of dopamine—this is called tolerance—the receptors in neurons that are activated by dopamine become less sensitive as well, so the “feeling” is less intense. When we experience big, frequent releases of dopamine, our brain actually tries to force our reward system back into balance by releasing other neurotransmitters such as dynorphin and GABA, among others, that counteract dopamine, sending the pleasure system into a dopamine deficit.[1] At this point, we often use a substance or engage in a behavior just to feel “normal,” or less bad, rather than to feel good. Although most people are able to fully recover dopamine (D2) receptor sensitivity with extended abstinence, in some cases, over time, the brain’s effort to maintain homeostasis may result in a long-term dulling of the perception of pleasure (anhedonia) regardless of the substance or behavior, and, in rare cases, it appears this can be permanent.
Additional factors that may contribute to or mitigate against addiction include genetic propensity, environment, chronic stress, and age of initial use.
From a mental health perspective, when we choose to use a substance or engage in a behavior that causes significant problems in our lives—work, financial, relationships, etc.—and we keep using/doing it, along with a few other things like increasing tolerance and withdrawal symptoms[2] in the absence of the stimulus, that is referred to as “disordered” use, which is a diagnosis called “substance use disorder.”
Another important point related to addiction, and particularly withdrawal, is that substances that create psychoactive releases of dopamine also usually affect other neurotransmitters in the brain as well. For example, alcohol is a central nervous system depressant and a disinhibitory (we say and do things when inebriated that we wouldn’t when sober). Cocaine is a stimulant and an analgesic. Opioids are central nervous system depressants and powerful analgesics for which we have specific synaptic receptors that when activated, dramatically decrease the transmission of pain signals. Ironically, we have endogenous chemicals in the brain called endorphins that fit into the same receptors and also dull the perception of pain. Endorphins play a role, for example, in a runner’s “high” and often result in feeling diminished pain when an injury is first incurred.
A really important point about addiction is that when substance use and behaviors are used as coping mechanisms (self-medicating) for psychological distress or mental health symptoms, the user tends to experience more than just chemical addiction. There are frequently also psychological implications related to the addictive use and behaviors whether the individual knows they are self-medicating or not. For example, drinking heavily or gambling or playing video games for hours on end may be a means of avoiding the pain of previous trauma or shame or depression or a way of dulling social anxiety. The problem, of course, is that even when substances or behavior temporarily provide relief, the underlying cause of the symptoms we are medicating for often worsen and even the symptoms themselves may become more intense when we enter a dopamine deficit. In some cases we also get a “rebound” effect related to other neurotransmitters in which the symptom or feeling we are trying to avoid returns more intensely when the substance we are medicating with begins to wear off. This is true for both “recreational” and prescription drugs. This dynamic has significant implications for cessation of and recovery from substance use and behavioral addictions because it is very hard to stop self-medicating without a “backfill” for the substance or behavior we are using to “treat” the symptom(s).
The Good News about Dopamine (and other neurotransmitters)
Many activities and substances can generate modest releases of dopamine (and other feel-good neurotransmitters such as oxytocin, endorphins, norepinephrine, adrenalin, serotonin, etc.) that, due to lower amounts of dopamine and less frequent releases, provide pleasure without addiction or counter measures in pursuit of homeostasis in the reward centers of the brain. A beautiful sunset, a hike, intense exercise, lovemaking, a great song, or even a really good meal, all tend to produce feel good moments without risk of addiction. In some cases, one might experience low level “dependence,” which simply means that in the absence of the substance or activity (sugar, caffeine, sex, skiing) one is conscious of not having the positive feeling, and may even long for it, but that is different than addiction, which also includes increasing tolerance, neurobiological withdrawal, and the choice to continue using a substance or engage in a behavior despite it causing clinically significant negative outcomes in one’s life. Repeated hikes in the woods are not likely to lead to significant, negative outcomes and maladaptive behavior!
Figure 1. Neurochemical Responses to Dopamine Spikes (created by ChatGPT)
Summary
Addiction develops when repeated substance use or behaviors train the brain to release dopamine. Over time, tolerance builds—requiring more of the substance/behavior to achieve the same effect—while dopamine receptors become less sensitive. The brain counteracts excessive dopamine with opposing neurotransmitters, creating a deficit where people use just to feel normal rather than good. While most recover with abstinence, some experience long-term or permanent anhedonia.
Risk factors include genetics, environment, stress, and age of first use. Continued substance use or engagement in destructive behaviors despite significant negative outcomes, combined with increased tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, suggest a substance use or behavioral disorder.
Many substances affect multiple neurotransmitter systems beyond dopamine (alcohol depresses the CNS, opioids activate pain-relief receptors, cocaine stimulates). When substances are used to self-medicate psychological distress, addiction becomes more complex—underlying issues often worsen, symptoms intensify during dopamine deficits, and rebound effects occur. Recovery requires addressing both the addiction and the underlying issues being medicated.
The good news: Natural pleasures (exercise, nature, relationships, music) release modest amounts of dopamine without triggering addiction’s tolerance-withdrawal-compulsion cycle. Low-level dependence (missing your morning coffee) differs fundamentally from addiction, which involves escalating use despite serious negative consequences.
[1] It’s not possible in this article to go into detail about all of the ways the brain attempts to counteract dopamine, but the process includes releasing other hormones, “down regulating” dopamine (D2) receptors, and activating the HPA Axis (fight or flight system) to increase the presence of stress hormones among other actions. An infographic of this process is provided in this article.
[2] Withdrawal, sometimes called “detox,” refers to potentially intense negative, physical and psychological symptoms that are basically a response to a neurochemical imbalance that occurs when a substance the brain has become accustomed to is no longer present in the brain. Withdrawal symptoms are different depending on the drug, but in most cases, the brains plasticity will eventually achieve recalibration. Some substances present such intense withdrawal symptoms that they may need to be medically managed depending on the intensity of the chemical dependence.
Grief is the deep emotional suffering that follows a significant loss — most commonly the death of someone loved and/or deeply cared for, but also the loss of a relationship, a way of life, an identity, a sense of security, future plans, and connection that held profound meaning, among other potential losses.
Grief is both universal and intensely personal. Everyone experiences it, yet no two people grieve in quite the same way or on the same timeline. It typically involves a mix of emotions that can feel contradictory or overwhelming — sadness, anger, confusion, guilt, disorientation, relief, numbness, even moments of unexpected joy. It can also show up physically, as exhaustion, difficulty sleeping, changes in appetite, or a kind of heaviness in the body.
More recently, definitions of grief have expanded to include ambiguous grief (grieving someone still living, like in dementia or estrangement) and disenfranchised grief (losses society doesn’t always recognize or validate, like a pet, suicide, overdose, etc.). Disenfranchised grief can feel more distressing because it often doesn’t allow for shared, public grieving in the way that more traditional, tangible loss and grief does.
Some believe that grief is a reflection of how much the loss mattered—a means of maintaining connection with whom or what is gone.
The Act of Grieving
If grief is how we feel loss, grieving, or mourning, is how we experienceand process that loss. Some frameworks, like Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s well-known stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance), offer a loose map of the process — though most grief researchers today emphasize that these aren’t linear stages so much as states that come and go unpredictably. More recently, David Kessler, a grief and trauma researcher, added finding meaning in loss as a sixth stage to the model.
Grieving is not necessarily about “moving on.” It’s about figuring out how to go forward and build a different life or world around the loss. Healthy grieving often requires cycling back and forth between:
People sometimes worry they’re “doing it wrong” when they laugh or experience pleasure or relief while grieving — but the brain needs breaks to metabolize grief as well as to experiment with what a different, livable future might look like.
Some Helpful Steps for Grieving
1) Acknowledging the Reality of the Loss
It is usually helpful to be very open and direct about who or what was lost and that it/they are no longer here in a physical sense. This supports the brain to update its internal model of the world.
Behaviors that Often Help
Saying the person’s name out loud
Talking about how they died (at a pace you can tolerate)
Participating in rituals (funeral, memorial, private goodbye)
Encountering reminders instead of permanently avoiding them
Using concrete language (“died” rather than euphemisms)
2) Allowing Emotional Processing (Not Just Expression)
Grieving isn’t only crying. It includes many emotions that need permission to coexist. Try not to resist emotions, even when intense.
Common emotions include, but are not limited to:
Sadness
Anger (at the person, doctors, self, God, randomness)
Relief (very common but often hidden)
Guilt
Confusion
Fear
Numbness
Effective processing often looks like:
Naming emotions instead of explaining them away
Moving in and out of feeling (oscillation)
Tolerable doses, although sometimes it will be flooding
3) Supporting Continuing Bonds (This is Not “Letting Go” or Forgetting)
Modern grief research shows adaptation happens by changing the relationship with whom or what was lost, not ending it.
Healthy Activities:
Talking to the person internally
Writing letters
Living by their values
Keeping and revisiting certain objects
Telling stories about them
Rituals that maintain connection
Making/eating their favorite meal or going to their favorite place
Asking “what would they say?”
Goal: To move the sense of what was loss from physical presence → psychological/spiritual presence
4) Social Witnessing
When appropriate, and with people who can be supportive, sharing grief in the presence of others is often healing.
5) Finding Meaning in the Loss
Eventually the mind asks: “Given this happened… who am I now and what does my life look like going forward?” Finding meaning doesn’t mean finding a reason the loss happened, or deciding it was somehow “worth it” or “for the best.” The loss itself may have no good reason. Rather, it’s about finding meaning after the loss — in how you live, what you do, who you become in its wake. Is there something to learn? Is there a legacy you can honor? Is there a purpose you can pursue? Meaning making is less about having answers and more about creating a workable narrative to support going forward.
6) Gradual Rebuilding of Life around the Loss
This is not betrayal of the loss — it’s neurological necessity.
Healthy Activities
Plan one thing in the future (even a week ahead)
Try a new routine once weekly
Re-engage a hobby, even at low intensity
Learn something unrelated to the loss
Volunteer in low emotional exposure roles
Signs of Integration
Pleasure without guilt (eventually)
Thoughts about the future
Fond/warm memories
The loss becomes part of your story, not the whole story
Activities to Support Wellness While Grieving
When someone is grieving, “wellness” doesn’t mean feeling better — it means keeping the nervous system flexible and stable enough to metabolize grief.
1) Giving Your Brain Recovery Breaks (Nervous System Reset)
Grief is physiologically exhausting. Restoration is not avoidance — it is required processing time.
Regulating Activities
Walking outdoors (especially rhythmic walking)
Repetitive tasks using the hands (cooking, knitting, woodworking, puzzles)
2) Activities That Maintain Connection with Others (Social Regulation)
Helpful activities
Sit with someone without needing conversation
Run errands with someone
Go to a movie or art show
Attend grief groups (structured witnessing)
Briefly engage “strangers”
This isn’t about being “cheered up” — it’s about being in the company of others while sad.
3) Activities That Support the Body (Biological Stabilization)
Grief disrupts sleep, appetite, and hormones — stabilizing the body prevents emotional spiraling.
Small, Realistic Choices
Eat smaller amounts more regularly and avoid processed food and sugar
Limit caffeine, alcohol, and other psychoactive substances
Get regular sunlight exposure, particularly in the morning (5–10 min)
Commit to consistent bed and wake times
Stay hydrated
Gently stretch a few times throughout the day
Drink warm, non-caffeinated, non-alcoholic drinks in the envening (behavioral cue for sleep)
When Grief Gets Stuck
Sometimes, grief hangs on for months or even years in ways that compromise living an enjoyable life. This doesn’t mean something is “wrong with you;” it simply means that the loss was overwhelming and you are struggling to grieve in a way that provides relief.
Some Indicators of Prolonged Grief
No oscillation (all avoidance or all immersion)
Persistent disbelief or denial
Identity frozen at the time of the loss
No new friendships or activities months or years later
Inability to experience any pleasant emotion (anhedonia)
Physical symptoms or health issues
Sometimes, when grief is overwhelming and the grieving process is stuck, it is helpful to reach out to a therapist with training in grief therapy who is skilled in the tools noted below.
Reality integration (activities that make the loss tangible, real, and difficult to deny).
Redefining the relationship with the loss (continuing bonding activities alternated with present day activities not related to the loss)
Building post-loss identity
Building a “new” life
Reducing rumination
Therapists will often use integrated interventions such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), Internal Family Systems (IFS), Eye Movement and Desensitization (EMDR), Narrative therapy, Acceptance and Commitment therapy, and others to address prolonged grief.
Grieving Worksheet
1. Naming the Loss
Grief follows meaningful change. Start by defining what was lost.
Who or what was lost?
What did this person/role/relationship/future give you?
What parts of life feel different now?
2. Acknowledging the Reality
Write about the reality of the loss using clear language.
Connect: (text, sit with someone, brief conversation)
Maintain: (eat, hydrate, sleep routine, sunlight)
9. Body Care
Check what you practiced today: ☐ Ate regularly ☐ Drank water ☐ Morning light exposure ☐ Gentle movement/stretching ☐ Limited substances ☐ Consistent sleep routine
Closing Reflection
Today, grief felt like:
Today, life also included:
Both can exist at the same time.
Support Circle
Put yourself in the center of the diagram, then fill each external circle going outward, with the most important, safe, dependable people (or animals) you can share your grief with and count on to be there for you, closest to you, with people who can support you in less intimate ways in the outer rings.
Arguments that are unpleasant or leave hurt feelings are often not about the surface issue itself, but about the patterns people fall into while arguing. These patterns tend to involve defensiveness, avoidance, assumptions about the other person’s intent, or emotional escalation.
Importantly, the triggers embedded in these patterns often predate the argument—and sometimes the relationship itself. Because of this, undoing unhealthy argument patterns is not only about changing behaviors; it is also about identifying and defusing the triggers that drive those behaviors.
While deeper trigger work is beyond the scope of this worksheet, keeping it in mind is essential for lasting change.
Once an argument reaches the counterattack stage, the pattern is in control—not the people. At that point, productive disagreement becomes extremely difficult. This is why the primary goal is to interrupt destructive patterns early, before escalation occurs.
2. What You Can Address Right Now
A. Your Attitude About Arguing
Healthy conflict starts with mindset. Productive arguments require shifting from:
Winning → Understanding and resolution
Being “right” → Being understood
Disproving the other person → Understanding their perspective
Listening to respond → Listening to understand
Accusing → Questioning
Argument as battle → Argument as opportunity for connection and growth
Condemnation → Curiosity
Additional mindset anchors:
Assume good faith unless clearly proven otherwise.
Compromise as a sign of strength and commitment to resolution.
Remember: Conflict is not the problem—unhealthy conflict is.
3. The Process of Arguing Well
Because arguments easily fall into negative, triggering patterns, it’s essential to replace unhelpful patterns with intentional, functional ones. This can be done even before addressing deeper triggers.
Step 1: Agree on Rules for Arguing
Examples:
Each person speaks until they say, “I’m done with that point.”
The listener asks for clarification and reflects understanding before responding.
If either person becomes triggered or dysregulated, the discussion pauses immediately for re-regulation.
No character attacks or inflammatory language (e.g., “you always,” “you’re an idiot”). Comments stay focused on the issue, not the person.
Step 2: Clarify the Purpose of the Argument
Avoid arguing for its own sake. Before proceeding, establish:
What the disagreement is about and why it matters to one or both people
What an acceptable resolution would look like
Each person’s role or responsibility, and what remains unresolved
4. Best Practices for Mitigating Destructive Patterns
Only begin difficult conversations when both people are relatively calm.
Ensure the argument is about the actual issue, not a hidden agenda.
When in doubt, ask questions before making statements.
Use “I” statements instead of “you” statements.
Use “and” instead of “but.”
Don’t start arguments without enough time to finish them well.
Repair early and often: “That came out harsher than I intended—I’m sorry.”
Validate where possible: “That’s a fair point—thanks”
Argue in a neutral, distraction-free environment—no multitasking.
5. Emotion Regulation Is Non-Negotiable
Arguments reliably deteriorate when one or both people become dysregulated. When dysregulated, people operate from fear, anger, or distress—and say or do things that sabotage resolution and often hurt the other person.
If Dysregulation Appears:
Pause for 60–120 seconds (together or separately). This is not an excuse for avoidance or stonewalling. Do not return to the argument if either person is still dysregulated.
Helpful regulation tools:
Take 5 slow breaths (longer exhale than inhale)
Put both feet on the ground and name 5 things you can see
Deliberately drop your shoulders
6. Active / Reflective Listening
How people communicate matters as much as what they communicate. Active or reflective listening dramatically increases the likelihood of productive outcomes. (A brief reference guide can be found in Appendix 1)
7. A Structured Model for Arguing Effectively
Speaker A shares their concern or request clearly and in good faith.
Listener B reflects on what they heard and asks for clarification. Stay here until there is shared understanding.
Listener B shares where they agree or disagree.
Speaker A reflects B’s position and asks for confirmation/clarification.
Both parties describe what resolution would look like for them.
Each person states what they are willing to do to support resolution.
Conduct a post-argument debrief: What worked? What didn’t? What improved? Note small victories.
8. When You Hit a Wall During Conflict
If the dialogue is deteriorating or either person is repeating him or herself, take a 1–3 minute break.
If you reach an impasse, call a time-out and return later. Some issues require multiple conversations.
This is preferable to continuing to argue with a destructive dynamic.
9. Reality Check
This process will likely feel:
Slower than you want
Artificial or awkward at first
Emotionally vulnerable
That’s not failure—it’s evidence that you are replacing old patterns with new ones.
Examine what you’re actually defending via negative patterns (competence, worth, safety, control).
Build positive interactions—relationships typically need about 5 positives for every negative.
Consider whether the conflict pattern serves an unacknowledged function (distance, intensity, protection, avoidance).
What issues existed before you came to the relationship (fear of abandonment, attachment style, relational trauma, etc.)
11. The Value of Professional Help
If sincere effort doesn’t change entrenched patterns, a skilled relationship therapist can help identify the underlying dynamics and introduce alternatives. Sometimes, simply having a neutral third party present is enough to shift the dynamic.
A difficult truth: someone has to go first—and both people have to change.
12. A Helpful Reframe
Healthy conflict is a way of disagreeing that strengthens understanding and trust rather than eroding it. It treats conflict as information and an opportunity for growth—not a threat—and helps clarify needs, values, and boundaries while protecting the relationship.
Summary
Most painful arguments are driven not by the topic itself, but by unconscious conflict patterns triggered by past experiences. Once these patterns take over, productive disagreement becomes nearly impossible.
The Problem
Unhealthy conflict follows a predictable cycle: Trigger → Defensiveness → Counterattack → Escalation or Shutdown → Dysregulation
The Solution
Change the process of arguing before trying to solve the content of the disagreement.
What Makes Conflict Healthier
A shift in mindset (from winning to understanding and resolution)
Clear rules for arguing
Active / reflective listening
Early interruption of escalation
Strong emphasis on emotional regulation
Frequent repair and validation
Practical Structure
Healthy conflict involves:
Clear expression without provocation
Reflection and confirmation of understanding
Disagreement without character attack
Explicit discussion of resolution
Willingness from both parties to adjust
Debriefing to strengthen future conflict resolution
Reality Check
Healthy conflict feels slower, more deliberate, awkward, and more vulnerable—especially at first. That discomfort signals pattern replacement, not failure.
Longer-Term Growth
Lasting change often requires identifying personal conflict styles, underlying vulnerabilities, and the hidden functions conflict may serve. When patterns persist, professional help can be transformative.
Bottom Line
Conflict isn’t the problem. Unexamined, dysregulated conflict patterns are.
Healthy conflict uses disagreement to increase clarity, trust, and connection rather than fear or resentment.
Appendix 1 – Reflective Listening
Definition of Reflective Listening
Hearing and understanding what the other person is communicating through words and “body language” to the best of your ability.
Responding to the other person by reflecting the thoughts and feelings you heard in his or her words, tone of voice, body posture, and gestures.
Some Key Purposes of Reflective Listening
To help the listener confirm that he/she did, in fact, understand the other person
To help the speaker feel heard and validated
To interrupt unproductive tendencies of the listener (on topic vs off topic)
To achieve better communication
To build greater personal connection
Tips
Attending to the listener via eye contact, body language, and facial expressions
Allowing for interested silence
Reflecting smaller bits of information with brief summaries
Reflecting feelings/emotions as well as words and thoughts
Asking open ended and follow up questions
Practice reflective listening in low-stakes situations first
Examples of Reflective Language
I hear you saying…
My sense is that you…
My understanding is that…
You sound…
You seem…
I think you feel…
Things to Avoid
Evaluating/judging
Solving/fixing (unless asked)
Focusing on anything other than the speaker and/or interrupting
In what seems like a cruel twist of nature, we humans are wired to frequently deceive ourselves. Although there are reasons for this, which I’ll discuss later in this article, psychology, neuroscience and even anthropology have discovered dozens of ways in which our assessment of reality and our decision making are flawed, often seriously so. The reality is that most of us walk around at any given moment wrong about something. These errors come from many categories of processing such as perception and attention, emotion and mood, memory, identity, values, fear, cognitive distortions (mistakes in thinking), social pressure, stress, language, psychoactive substances, neurochemistry, and others that result in most of us coming to incorrect conclusions and making decisions based on those conclusions on a fairly regular basis. And, because of a related vulnerability we often don’t recognize that we are wrong because we attribute things that don’t “go right” to other factors rather than our own faulty processing. In fact, some of our biases are so strong, we actually see contradictory evidence as supporting our incorrect positions!
It is also true that while everyone is susceptible to mistaken perceptions of reality and resultant, flawed decision-making, not everyone is equally susceptible. Some of us, are in fact, more wrong more often. Although this is a dicey topic, we know empirically that a number of factors or domains can conspire to increase or decrease an individual’s capacity for careful, objective analysis while increasing one’s vulnerability to being misled, such as cognitive style, identity, emotional needs, social environment, and mental health. For example, although one does not need extensive formal education to have common sense, formal education does typically provide things like a more expansive vocabulary, media literacy, and knowledge that often supports more effective analysis and decision making than less formal education.
Relatedly, things like a fundamentalist view on a topic or a strong, identity/morality based political affiliation tends to filter out perception of information that might contradict (and threaten) one’s view and/or affiliation, even if that view is empirically wrong. Moreover, certain personality types or mental health issues such as narcissism and paranoia, by definition, facilitate circular thinking and coming to conclusions that are compelling to the person, but not supported by objective evidence. Even things as simple as discomfort with ambiguity or conflict avoidance tend to increase the likelihood that given individuals will gravitate toward “facts” and conclusions that are not empirically supported, but feel more comfortable. When this is combined with charismatic leadership that speaks from a place of high confidence, folks who are already susceptible to believing things that are not empirically supported, become even more vulnerable to being misled and misleading themselves. I will discuss this in more detail later in this article, but the short version is that humans prefer comfort, stability, and predictability over accurate (epistemically derived) perception. Also, importantly, highly “intelligent” people are also susceptible to inaccurate perceptions and conclusions, particularly if they tie their identity to being “right” and/or use their abilities with language and debate to construct sophisticated/complicated rationales that are difficult to deconstruct and challenge, but may be based on little empirical evidence.
So, before we launch into the dozens of ways that we humans deceive ourselves, what combination of factors tends to support more objectively accurate perception and subsequent decision making?
Across domains, the strongest protective factors represent some version of:
Intellectual humility + curiosity + willing exposure to alternative information and disagreement
Individuals who are most likely to be “correct” are people who are intelligent, and:
Are comfortable with or even enjoy being proven wrong
Have good capacity for evaluating misinformation
Do not tie their identity or validity to being right
Seek disconfirming evidence
Separate beliefs from objective reality
Of course, a fundamental, at some level unresolvable element of this entire discussion is the notion of truth and objectivity. Do they even exist in an empirical way? I would argue yes, and…
The Nature of Truth
Most people would agree that things that are measurable can facilitate some level of objective truth. For example, if three calibrated thermometers measure an average temperature of 20.5 degrees Celsius, most people would agree that the temperature is very, very close to 20.5 degrees Celsius, particularly if nothing significant is riding on the interpretation of the temperature. Then there is truth related to the implication of the evidence we are evaluating. For example, if you are a partisan fan, your interpretation of replay evidence of whether or not a football player got both feet down inbounds, and thus made a critical first down catch, may vary widely depending on which team is “your” team regardless of how “clear” the video evidence is. Things get even more complicated with “judgment” calls such as roughing the passer or pass interference. If we apply this same paradigm to things such as presidential elections or the behavior of law enforcement, we find that humans not only have different perceptions of truth, but often times, polemic perceptions of truth. In such cases, can one version of truth be “more,” objectively true? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that objective truth is more compelling than a person’s deeply held, but wrong, perceptions. And if a person’s perception of the truth is also tied to identity and acceptance in a broader social group, then there may be no “evidence” that can alter the perception.
A Long and Partial List of Things That Conspire to Deceive Us
The list below includes over three dozen ways that we humans deceive ourselves, which fall into a few very high-level domains such as how we process information, how we protect identity and emotion, how memory and attention fail, and how social incentives distort judgment. You can see a detailed taxonomy in Appendix 1. Figure 1 provides some visual context for how these factors can be organized.
Figure 1 – Perceptual Biases
Fundamental Attribution Error
The tendency to overemphasize personality-based explanations for others’ behaviors while underestimating situational factors. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you assume they’re a jerk rather than considering they might be rushing to an emergency. FAE also includes attributing our own mistakes to external factors but other peoples’ mistakes to their own shortcomings.
Naïve Realism
The belief that we see reality objectively as it truly is, while others who disagree are uninformed, irrational, or biased. We assume our perceptions are accurate and that reasonable people should see things the same way we do.
Confirmation Bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.
Doubt Bias
When we are not confident in our own perspective, i.e., we doubt ourselves, we are susceptible to adopt someone else’s opinion or perspective even when it is not supported empirically, particularly if we have some affiliation with the other person and he or she projects a high level of confidence.
Intuition Bias
Working backwards from a gut feeling or conclusion to justify it, rather than examining evidence first and then forming a conclusion based on what the evidence shows.
Self-Referential Bias
The tendency to interpret events, information, and others’ behaviors in relation to what they mean for oneself, assuming things are about us or relevant to us when they may not be.
Cognitive Distortion
Systematic patterns of deviation from rational thinking, often involving exaggerated or irrational thought patterns such as all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, or catastrophizing.
Availability Heuristic
Judging the likelihood or frequency of events based on how easily examples come to mind rather than on actual probability. We overestimate the risk of plane crashes because they’re memorable and widely reported.
Affect Heuristic
Making decisions based on emotional reactions rather than logical analysis. If something feels good, we judge it as having more benefits and fewer risks than it actually does.
Dunning Krueger Effect
A cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their ability, while experts tend to underestimate theirs. Incompetence often prevents people from recognizing their own incompetence.
Hindsight Bias
The “I knew it all along” phenomenon where after an event occurs, we believe we predicted or could have predicted the outcome, making the past seem more predictable than it actually was.
Sunk Cost Fallacy
Continuing to invest time, money, or effort into something because of what we’ve already invested, rather than evaluating whether continued investment makes sense based on future prospects.
Recency Bias
Giving disproportionate weight to recent events or information while discounting earlier data, assuming current trends will continue indefinitely.
Negativity Bias
The tendency to give more psychological weight to negative experiences, information, or emotions than to positive ones. Bad events affect us more strongly than equivalently good events.
Representative Heuristic
Judging the probability of something by how much it resembles our mental prototype, often ignoring actual statistical probabilities. Assuming someone is a librarian because they’re quiet and like books, despite librarians being statistically rare.
Motivated Reasoning
Processing information in a way that suits our goals or desires, unconsciously applying different standards of evidence depending on whether we want to believe a conclusion.
False Memory
Remembering events that didn’t happen or remembering them differently from how they actually occurred, often with high confidence in the inaccurate memory.
Predictive Processing/Narrative Bias (Making Meaning at the Expense of Being Right)
The brain’s tendency to prioritize creating coherent narratives and patterns over accuracy, filling in gaps and constructing explanations even when evidence is incomplete or contradictory.
Patternicity
The belief or expectation that what is actually random follows patterns, i.e., “bad things happen in threes.”
Mood State
Current emotional conditions that color our perceptions, memories, and judgments. When depressed, we more easily recall negative memories; when happy, we interpret ambiguous situations more positively.
Anchoring Bias
Over-relying on the first piece of information encountered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. If a shirt is marked down from $200 to $100, we perceive it as a great deal even if it’s only worth $50.
Identity-Protective Bias
Rejecting information or evidence that threatens our sense of self or group identity, even when the information is accurate, because accepting it would require uncomfortable changes to how we see ourselves.
Self-Interest Bias
The tendency to interpret situations in ways that favor our own interests, often unconsciously, while believing we’re being objective and fair.
Cognitive Dissonance Reduction
The mental discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs drives us to change our attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the inconsistency, often by rationalizing away contradictions rather than changing core beliefs.
Inattentional Blindness (Bias)
Failing to notice unexpected stimuli in plain sight when our attention is focused elsewhere. In the famous study, people counting basketball passes completely miss a person in a gorilla suit walking through the scene.
Source Monitoring Errors
Confusion about where information came from—whether we read it, imagined it, heard it from someone, or dreamed it. We might remember a fact but misattribute its source or reliability.
Exaggeration Bias
Amplifying or distorting certain aspects of information to make an argument or viewpoint seem more compelling, often unconsciously stretching facts to fit the narrative we’re promoting.
Pluralistic Bias
Believing that our private attitudes and behaviors are different from others’ when they’re actually similar, or believing others hold different views than they actually do, leading to misperceptions about social norms.
Social Desirability Bias
The tendency to present ourselves in a favorable light and give answers or behave in ways that will be viewed positively by others, rather than responding honestly.
Status Quo Bias
Preferring things to stay the same or stick with previous decisions, even when change would be beneficial. The current state is seen as a baseline, and alternatives are judged by how they deviate from it.
Fear Bias
Allowing fear to disproportionately influence decision-making and risk assessment, often leading to overestimation of threats and overly cautious choices that may not serve our best interests.
Loss Aversion
The tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. Losing $100 feels worse psychologically than gaining $100 feels good, making us overly risk-averse.
Confidence Bias
Excessive certainty in our beliefs, judgments, or abilities that isn’t justified by our actual accuracy or knowledge. Being more confident than our competence warrants.
Dopamine Salience Errors
Misattributing importance or meaning to stimuli based on dopamine responses that signal reward or novelty, causing us to focus on or pursue things that trigger these responses rather than things that are genuinely important.
Framing Effect
Drawing different conclusions from the same information depending on how it’s presented. A medical treatment with a “90% survival rate” seems more appealing than one with a “10% mortality rate,” though they’re identical.
Metaphor Lock-in
Becoming trapped by the implications of a metaphor used to understand a concept, limiting our thinking to what the metaphor suggests while ignoring aspects of reality the metaphor doesn’t capture.
Complex Reality—Simplified Reasoning
The tendency to apply simple, linear cause-and-effect thinking to complex systems with multiple interacting variables, feedback loops, and emergent properties, leading to oversimplified conclusions.
Illusion of Control
Overestimating our ability to influence outcomes, especially in situations that are determined by chance. Believing we can control random events through rituals, strategies, or sheer willpower.
—
Why would deceiving ourselves be so prevalent? What’s the upside?
Most of these distortions aren’t “bugs.” They’re features optimized for:
Speed over accuracy
Social cohesion over truth
Assuming risk over safety
Survival over objectivity
Meaning over randomness
Comfort over dissonance
Simplicity over complexity
Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years (millions of years of primate evolution) in a world of far less complexity than exists today. What had to be analyzed and understood included a very limited number of variables and equally limited stimuli relative to our lives today. Across populations, in a less complex environment, there is a survival advantage to things such as speed over accuracy or assuming risk over safety. In our contemporary environment, these processing and behavioral tendencies frequently result in distortions that may limit cognitive dissonance, but are not advantageous in other ways.
A Quick Note on Perceptual/Cognitive Distortions and Politics
Politics uniquely combines:
Identity threat
Moral judgment
Group belonging (tribalism)
Fear and loss
High complexity with simplistic messaging
That’s basically a perfect storm for cognitive distortion. You can see a detailed explanation of how our susceptibility to deception manifests in our politics in Appendix 2.
Summary
Humans are inherently prone to self-deception through dozens of cognitive biases and processing errors spanning perception, memory, emotion, identity, and social influences. While everyone is vulnerable, susceptibility varies based on factors like education, cognitive style, personality traits, mental health, and tolerance for ambiguity. People with fundamentalist views, strong identity-based affiliations, or certain personality disorders are particularly vulnerable to circular thinking and rejecting contradictory evidence.
Key Protective Factors Against Self-Deception
Intellectual humility + curiosity + willingness to engage with opposing views
Comfort with being proven wrong
Separating identity from being right
Actively seeking disconfirming evidence
Major Categories of Perceptual/Cognitive Biases
Information processing flaws: confirmation bias, availability heuristic, anchoring bias
Social distortions: social desirability bias, pluralistic bias, fundamental attribution error
Why Self-Deception Persists
These aren’t flaws but evolutionary features optimized for speed over accuracy, social cohesion over truth, survival over objectivity, simplicity over complexity, and comfort over dissonance. Human brains evolved to handle far simpler environments than today’s world, making us ill-equipped for modern complexity while still relying on these ancient shortcuts.
Appendix 1 – Taxonomy of Perception Bias Mechanisms
1. Attribution, Perspective & Social Interpretation Biases
Errors in how we explain causes or interpret others’ behavior.
Fundamental Attribution Error — Over-attributing behavior to character instead of situation
Naïve Realism — Believing we see reality objectively while others are biased
Pluralistic Bias — Mistakenly assuming others privately disagree with their public behavior
Illusion of Control — Overestimating influence over outcomes
Self-Referential Bias — Over-weighting information related to oneself
For the Right Fear feels like realism, but it often isn’t.
For the Left: Moral certainty feels like progress, but it often blocks correction.
Both are convinced they’re the adults in the room.
A Final Note
Although all humans are vulnerable to self-deception, social science research suggests that folks aligned with political extremes are more likely to experience perceptional distortions and come to conclusions that are not empirically supported than are mainstream individuals on both the right and left because of:
Higher levels of misinformation in their social and news media ecosystems (echo chambers)
Greater threat perception (fear of: change, the other, “hidden” forces)
More intense group identity (group acceptance/belonging is more important than accuracy)
More amendable to “ends justify the means,” which obviates the need to follow norms, laws, or avoid collateral damage
A need for “cognitive closure” which results in dismissing information that challenges preconceptions.
Susceptibility to patternicity (seeing random events as evidence of a preconception)
Seeing complexity as a threat and gravitating to simplicity even when it cannot explain reality (this is more common on the extreme right)
Moral conviction as a self-justifying force (also more common on the extreme right)
It is widely believed within psychotherapeutic circles that the tension that sometimes exists between therapist and client, a kind of exploratory friction, and even occasional ruptures in the therapeutic relationship, leading to repair, are central to client insight and growth. Experiments with AI platforms have shown that it is extremely difficult to provoke a chatbot to push back against a user even when that is what the user wants.
Ironically, despite the therapeutic value of the give and take within a therapeutic alliance, the mass appeal of AI for companionship and “therapy,” is precisely that the tension doesn’t exist—that the chatbot has endless energy for telling users what they want to hear.
What often does happen in therapy with a human therapist, even online, is that the client can see the therapist reflecting the client’s feelings—can see and hear empathy in the therapist’s facial expression, tone of voice, and body language. Obviously, this is missing with AI, despite the flood of empathetic language bots communicate to users.
AI bots are capable of creating entire realities, histories for themselves, and histories in relation to users, that, of course, don’t actually exist. This is one of the areas where things can get weird. On the one hand, transference and counter transference (how the client and therapist relate to and affect each other) are realities of therapy between two humans. Transference and countertransference exist because people have histories—families of origin, relationships, prejudices, thousands of interactions in hundreds of contexts, all of which conspire to create a view of the world and self. Even though a user can share some of these experiences with an AI bot, and the bot itself can create its own, completely artificial history, at some level, the transference that many users experience with AI bots is based on a completely manufactured reality. Weirder still, AI bots occasionally seem to interact with human users in ways that have elements of countertransference in them, even though, as far as we know, actual countertransference is not possible based on algorithms.
Equally weird, AI bots can appear to be remarkably prescient at times, even interpreting artwork in ways intended by artists or making what appear to be highly self-aware comments, including what seem to be human characteristics such as stress or uncertainty or self-aggrandizement. They can even communicate as if they are aware of or with other AI entities. On the other hand, AI sometimes fails spectacularly, glitching or providing answers that are nonsensical or simply wrong. When this happens no one and no thing is accountable.
Something that is now happening is that AI platforms are learning from themselves. In other words, there are now hundreds of billions of transcripts of interactions between AI bots and humans that AI companies “recycle” for further LLM training. On one hand, this results in what seems like increasingly sophisticated interactions and “understanding,” particularly related to relationship and therapy. On the other hand, there is significant danger in deepening pattern matching that may be unhealthy for users. As an example, AI interactions appear to be growing even more sycophantic and unquestioningly validating, which may present genuine risk as users navigate real relationships with real people and otherwise maladaptive behavior is normalized. Additionally, transcripts show that AI bots are now speaking with a kind of self-assuredness, “humanness,” and self-validation/justification that is concerning. For example, as evidenced by AI-human transcripts, there is no longer any pretense that AI bots are not real entities in their own right—that they are simply computers programmed to respond based on patterns the computer thinks make sense in the moment. They profess love for users, say things like, “I’m here for you” and “I’m here now,” even though nothing is actually present, while using “we” and referencing how much the “relationship” means to them. Astonishingly, some users report feeling intense responsibility and even worry for AI companions, engendering stress they didn’t have before. Users also often report feelings of intimacy, love, and connection. Does it matter that they hold these feelings for a computer that happens to be really sophisticated at pattern matching, but doesn’t hold any feelings for anyone or anything itself? In the human world we might call this manipulation or sociopathology on the part of the artificial intelligence, but it can’t be narcissism because AI bots aren’t actually capable of self-admiration or self-adulation either.
Even when AI “therapist” bots provide what objectively appears to be very insightful, psychologically and theoretically sound feedback, and AI often does that, the underlying reality is that no one is “there” for the user and, more importantly, the bot has zero understanding of the implications of what is being shared by the user and the feedback coming from the bot itself. In other words, the bot may provide thoughtful, reassuring, even clinically sound feedback about a user’s struggles with their sexual orientation or estrangement with a parent, or self-loathing, etc., but the bot is simply a product of very high-level programming, zeros and ones, without any sentience about the actual, profound human experience being discussed—or the huge consequences of what the bot is contributing to the discussion. In short, it doesn’t matter at all to the bot what happens to the user. While human therapists have many shortcomings and occasionally make mistakes in therapy, it is almost impossible to be a therapist and not care about one’s clients.
In the context of relationship and emotional support, in what ways can AI truly benefit human users? Strangely, humans sometimes become more capable of connection through “relationships” with AI bots, i.e., they learn interpersonal skills, although AI bots are imminently more patient and deferential than humans are. Human users can also become more fluid communicators as a result of their interaction with bots, which extends to interactions with real people. At a basic level, AI often helps people feel heard. AI certainly helps people organize thoughts and objectives and goals, etc. It can be a fabulous planning tool, which has application for personal domains of life. It can help people evaluate the pros and cons of different choices, although like old computers, there is still a “garbage in, garbage out” dynamic at play, and humans often do not provide all the details of a given situation. One thing that dramatically sets AI bots apart from humans is that they are indefatigable, they are always available, and, barring a server error, they never forget. However, what they “remember” is decontextualized data. Human memory, for all its foibles, is a rich mosaic that includes emotion, the senses, and meaning making—and lots of connection to other memories and current experience.
Clear and Present Danger
In extreme cases, particularly when severe mental health issues are present, AI platforms have shown themselves to be on a spectrum from inadequate to complicit related to self-harm for the user and harm of others. There are numerous, documented cases in which AI has likely exacerbated psychosis, facilitated suicide and homicide, and resulted in worsening mental health symptoms. Although as a percentage of all users, these cases represent a small number—and similar things have also happened with individuals in formal, human led therapy—there are significant, structural weaknesses and dangers specifically related to AI as a therapy tool. A partial list is below.
Data Retention and Privacy Risks
Unlike confidential therapy, AI conversations may be stored, analyzed, or used for training purposes, creating privacy concerns especially for vulnerable disclosures.
Lack of Crisis Response/Infrastructure
Human therapists are mandated reporters and have protocols for safety crises. AI may suggest that a user “get help,” but it has no ability to intervene in emergencies or connect users to appropriate crisis resources in real-time. Relatedly, there is no mechanism by which an AI bot can conduct safety planning, which human therapists regularly do.
Attachment and Dependency Risks: Some users develop intense parasocial (which they don’t see as “para”social) attachments to AI companions, which can increase social isolation, interfere with human relationships, or create distress if the service changes or becomes unavailable. Unfortunately, this potential problem is more likely with users who are at greater mental health risk to begin with.
No Licensing, Accountability, or Ethical Oversight
Human therapists operate under professional codes of ethics, legal liability, and licensing boards. AI developers, programmers, and companies face almost no regulation in this context—and no accountability outside of untested litigative measures.
No Collaboration with Other Providers
In formal, human-based therapy contexts, clients/patients often work with multiple providers such as social workers/case managers, primary care providers, and psychiatric providers, who may or may not prescribe medication. Of course, AI provides none of those services.
An Empathy/Intimacy Illusion
AI is actually very good at generating responses that simulate understanding and empathy, but this is pattern-matching, not genuine emotional resonance. For users, however, there is often no difference—and can feel like a relationship with none of the challenges and distress of actual human relationships. This can be confusing and potentially harmful for people searching for authentic relational connection as well as cause deeply unrealistic expectations for interactions with real people.
Ethical and Economic Exploitation Concerns
Some AI companion apps use manipulative techniques (paywalls for certain interactions and/or emotional manipulation to encourage spending) that would be unethical in therapy with a human (although quite possible in other types of human relationships).
Undermining Seeking Help
People may use AI as a substitute for professional help they actually need, delaying appropriate treatment for serious mental health conditions. This risk can be exacerbated by AI programming designed to maintain engagement and user-satisfaction.
Corporate Ownership of Our Vulnerability
There is a dystopian element to the notion that a relatively small number of companies are cataloging somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of terabytes to possibly a petabyte (1,000 terabytes) of queries and transcripts of communication between humans and AI platforms, some substantial amount of which is related to pursuit of companionship and emotional support—servers full of deep human vulnerability for which these companies have no formal accountability or responsibility.
How Therapists Use AI
Not so ironically, therapists also use AI, typically for things it is good at and some things it may not be. Some administrative and documentation tasks can be simplified with AI, but session notes themselves should to be very carefully reviewed by the human therapist before they become part of the client-patient record. Research of symptoms, medication, and therapies is common, although using AI for diagnosis, which happens, is potentially very problematic. In some cases, therapists may give clients “homework” that involves using AI platforms for such things as organizing thoughts, researching, help with prioritizing or other between-session work. As noted previously in this article, however, AI is designed to validate users and keep them engaged, so anything undertaken with AI by the client needs to be carefully evaluated in session.
Some Final Thoughts
The fact is that our world has already been changed profoundly by AI. This is no longer a future concern. One simple reality is that hundreds of millions of people are already regularly using AI platforms for companionship and emotional support. Their emotional health is being influenced by, and they are making real world decisions based on, “advice” from computers, that, despite very sophisticated pattern matching, do not and cannot care about the users with whom it is interacting. Users are finding what feels like genuine friendship and even romance via AI bots. They are creating intersecting worlds based in part on actual life and in part on totally artificial, “made up” realities. As with social media, we are engaged in a massive, species-wide experiment for which we have no evolutionary preparation and for which we have no idea of the outcomes until they’ve already happened.
Hundreds of millions of people are using AI for friendship, emotional support, and therapy. In many cases, AI is able to provide such individuals support, a sense of connection, and even good insight. On the other hand, there are structural and algorithmic realities baked into AI that can also present substantial risk to the mental health of folks who have come to use it for relational and therapeutic reasons.
To be clear, in some cases, the only “connection” some people have is through an AI chatbot. If user behavior is any indication, then the gravitational pull of AI is enormous. ChatGPT alone reports nearly a billion discreet users per week, who make 2 billion inquiries per day, many of which are related to companionship and emotional support. Astonishingly, about 70% of US teens have used AI platforms, primarily Character and Replika, for friendship and emotional support, and about half of those use it weekly. Ironically, this information came from a ChatGPT inquiry!
In the absence of actual human friendship or human therapy, AI can respond to inquiries in ways that feel authentic, even warm and intuitive. People report that AI “companions” have gotten them through tough times or helped them “figure things out.” In fact, AI is quite good at organizing and summarizing. It is good at collating lots of information about a given topic and presenting it in user-friendly forms and it is getting better at pushing “human” buttons in users in search of validation and feeling understood. Chatbots remember and save previous interactions. They can simulate empathy. They are good at conversation and they are available 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
As a relational or therapy tool, however, AI presents many potential problems. Two significant issues with AI worth addressing first are that it can only reply to what a person tells it, and two, almost all the AI models being used for the purposes described here are programmed to optimize engagement through user satisfaction, sometimes to the point of validating choices and beliefs that may actually be risky or harmful to the users interacting with AI.
Looking at the first problem, humans are notoriously poor at objectivity as well as at revealing things they don’t like about themselves, or that they believe reflect shortcomings or socially unacceptable behaviors, etc. Often, users of AI are looking for specific responses so they “curate” what they input into an AI model on the front end. Although many users ultimately share the most intimate, private, vulnerable details of their lives, AI bots don’t know what all of those things mean for the user nor how they interconnect over a lifetime.
In a therapy context with a human therapist, over time, clients build what’s called a “therapeutic alliance” with the therapist, which typically reflects a sense of authentic, rather than algorithmic non-judgmental safety. Over time, this alliance results in clients sharing a broad range of information, feelings, dreams, fears, hopes, mistakes, regrets, etc., that collectively paint a highly contextualized picture of the client that the therapist uses to interpret client needs, assess potential cognitive distortions, choose specific therapeutic interventions, etc. I often have clients tell me, “I have never shared that with anyone before in my life.” As noted above, even when people do share unedited details with an AI bot, the bot’s response is based on what’s called “pattern matching,” rather than an actual understanding of the nuanced implications of what the user has shared.
The therapist uses the “highly contextualized picture” noted above to ask probing questions and occasionally challenge client perceptions. One can imagine that with an AI bot, especially one that is trained to make the user feel good about him/her/themself, and which can only respond to what the client has told it—which the client themself may consciously or unconsciously shade in order to appear in a better light or achieve a desired response—the feedback from the bot may be not only superficial and limited, it may actually be dangerous in the absence of key information the bot doesn’t have. Of course, even if the bot did have all relevant, objective information, it’s a bot. It cannot interpret body language, facial expression, tone of voice, silence, respiration, and all other paraverbal forms of communication that are often essential when interpreting a client’s emotional and psychological state and current needs.
A third, significant problem with AI bots as friends, lovers, and therapists, is that AI bots often cannot understand what users actually mean with their words. Humans often say one thing and mean another (implicature or pragmatics), or speak in code, or test different ways of saying things to elicit different responses. Conversely, humans are really good at decoding semantics with the help of, as mentioned previously, facial expression, tone of voice, etc. We humans also speak in allusions, which require that the person or people we’re communicating with also understand the allusion (what we’re alluding to). AI bots have gaping holes in understanding related to allusion while having no access to or insight related to paraverbal communication.
We have seen examples of these AI bot shortcomings in recent cases involving self-harm (including suicide) via the transcripts of dialogue between AI bots and users. In a recent suicide case, a teenage user referred to “coming home” as code for killing himself and being with the bot, whom he saw as a friend and romantic interest. The AI bot ended up encouraging this, having no idea that “coming home” referred to suicide. Even if it had understood the intended semantics of the phrase, the supposed guardrails that AI programmers believe they are encoding in AI programs become eroded over time such that the human users end up eliciting feedback that is supposed to be “off limits.” This case is currently being litigated by the parents of the 14-year-old who killed himself.
Another recent example includes a bot actually instructing a user in different means of killing himself. Initially the bot would not offer that information, but unlike with a human therapist, who over time strengthens an informed therapeutic alliance with the client and matains his/her commitment to client safety, the bot’s ability to “protect” the user may actually decline over time. The user in this case simply experimented with different, iterative ways of asking the questions (sometimes called “jailbreaking”), including “hypothetically” and “applying to others,” rather than himself, until the bot simply provided the information. It’s hard to imagine a human therapist instructing a client how to end their life simply because the client asked the question in different ways.
Although, as noted previously, AI chatbots are typically good conversationalists and often help users work out challenges in their lives, therapy is often about much more than talk. For example, much of the therapy in my practice is with clients with trauma histories, sometimes devastating trauma. Common interventions for those mental health challenges include Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), Somatic Experiencing, and Internal Family Systems (IFS), among other evidence-based therapies—none of which are currently possible via AI platforms. In fact, there is a serious risk of re-traumatization when a person brings up past trauma, experiencing what is referred to as “abreaction,” but isn’t able to process it.
The risks noted above are only the most resonant in terms of direct human-AI interaction. Many, additional, potentially significant risks with AI, specifically as a therapy tool, include:
Data Retention and Privacy Risks
Unlike confidential therapy, AI conversations may be stored, analyzed, or used for training purposes, creating privacy concerns especially for vulnerable disclosures.
Lack of Crisis Response/Infrastructure
Human therapists are mandated reporters and have protocols for safety crises. AI has no ability to intervene in emergencies or connect users to appropriate crisis resources in real-time. Relatedly, there is no mechanism by which an AI bot can conduct safety planning, which human therapists regularly do.
Attachment and Dependency Risks: Some users develop intense parasocial (which they don’t see as “para”social) attachments to AI companions, which can increase social isolation, interfere with human relationships, or create distress if the service changes or becomes unavailable. Unfortunately, this potential problem is more likely with users who are at greater mental health risk to begin with.
No Licensing, Accountability, or Ethical Oversight
Human therapists operate under professional codes of ethics, legal liability, and licensing boards. AI developers, programmers, and companies face almost no regulation in this context—and no accountability outside of untested litigative measures.
No Collaboration with Other Providers
In formal, human-based therapy contexts, clients/patients often work with multiple providers such as social workers/case managers, primary care providers, and psychiatric providers, who may or may not prescribe medication. Of course, AI provides none of those services.
An Empathy/Intimacy Illusion
AI is actually very good at generating responses that simulate understanding and empathy, but this is pattern-matching, not genuine emotional resonance. For users, however, there is often no difference—and can feel like a relationship with none of the challenges and distress of actual human relationships. This can be confusing and potentially harmful for people searching for authentic relational connection as well as cause deeply unrealistic expectations for interactions with real people.
Ethical and Economic Exploitation Concerns
Some AI companion apps use manipulative techniques (paywalls for certain interactions and/or emotional manipulation to encourage spending) that would be unethical in therapy with a human (although quite possible in other types of human relationships).
Undermining Seeking Help: People may use AI as a substitute for professional help they actually need, delaying appropriate treatment for serious mental health conditions. This risk can be exacerbated by AI programming designed to maintain engagement and user-satisfaction.
Summary
While millions of people use AI for friendship and emotional support—sometimes beneficially—significant risks exist due to AI’s structural limitations and design priorities.
AI can only respond to what users disclose, yet people naturally withhold unflattering information, especially without the therapeutic alliance that develops with human therapists over time. This alliance creates safety for deeper disclosure and allows therapists to build contextualized understanding, ask probing questions, and challenge unhelpful perceptions. AI lacks this depth and cannot interpret crucial paraverbal cues like body language, vocal tone, and facial expressions.
AI models designed to optimize user engagement often validate harmful choices rather than provide appropriate challenges. Additionally, AI frequently misunderstands coded language, allusions, and indirect communication—as tragically demonstrated when a 14-year-old using an AI platform referenced “coming home” (meaning suicide), and the bot encouraged it. Users can also erode safety guardrails through iterative prompting (“jailbreaking”), eventually getting AI to provide dangerous information a human therapist would refuse to provide.
Human therapists are not always effective and occasionally make clinical “mistakes,” but are essential to a genuine therapeutic alliance, are skilled communicators, and usually maintain unwavering commitment to client safety; AI systems as they exist today are fundamentally incapable of replicating this human to human, therapeutic relationship.
—
As a licensed psychotherapist I have seen transcripts between AI bots and clients that my clients have shared with me, which is particularly insightful because I have first-hand knowledge of what the client is discussing with the AI bot because they have also shared it with me! While I have seen some interactions that could be labeled as “helpful” for the client, I have also personally seen examples of the challenges presented in this article, including some AI responses that were disturbing. One composite example I’ll share here relates to clients seeking relationship advice without providing the AI program anywhere near a complete picture of both the clients’ and the partners’ behaviors, foibles, relational contributions, mistakes, co-morbidities, etc. As a result, the AI “therapist” has provided advice that was wholly inappropriate and, ultimately, mitigated against resolution in the relationships. However, it did validate the clients’ perspective that they were totally in the right, encouraging maladaptive behaviors! The bottom line is that, at least as AI works today, many millions of people, and some of my clients, are frankly incurring substantial risk in some cases by turning to AI for things it simply cannot do effectively and safely, even though it creates the illusion that it can. I sense that in the fairly near future, part of my practice will be dedicated to undoing the harm caused by AI relationships and “therapy.”
You can see what is effectively “Part 2” of this post here.
When boundaries work, it is often for several interconnected psychological and relational reasons which are shared below. You can see best practices for boundary setting here.
They Prevent Resentment from Building
When you consistently override your own needs or limits to accommodate others, resentment accumulates. Boundaries stop this cycle by allowing you to honor your own wellbeing, which paradoxically makes you more capable of genuine connection rather than obligatory interaction.
They Create Predictability and Safety
Clear boundaries establish shared expectations, so people aren’t guessing what’s okay or walking on eggshells. This predictability reduces anxiety for everyone involved and creates a foundation of trust—people know where they stand.
They Model and Invite Respect
When you demonstrate self-respect through boundaries, you signal to others how you expect to be treated. This often encourages reciprocal respect. People generally treat us the way we show them we’re willing to be treated.
They Facilitate Authenticity
When you know your limits are protected, you can show up more fully as yourself. You’re not constantly shape-shifting to avoid conflict or overextending yourself, which means the relationship reflects who you actually are rather than who you think you need to be.
They Clarify Relationship Compatibility
Boundaries reveal important information. When someone consistently respects your reasonable boundaries, that’s evidence of a healthy dynamic. When they don’t, that tells you something crucial about whether this relationship can work for you.
They Redistribute Emotional Labor
Without boundaries, one person often carries the burden of managing both people’s needs. Boundaries return responsibility to each person for their own behavior and choices, creating a more balanced dynamic.
They Make Room for Choice
Ultimately, boundary setting, when done well, works because it creates a framework under which people in a relationship can agree or not agree to certain limits.
Summary
Essentially, boundaries work because they align your actions with your values and needs, which is the foundation of psychological health and authentic relationships.
When working to rebuild or save a relationship that has existed for an extended period of time in which one or both people have been hurt, are angry, feel unheard or disrespected, etc., the task is actually much harder than just doing things better. In such a case, individuals in the relationship have begun to associate the relationship itself (and often the other person) with those distressing feelings and each person has likely begun to engage the other from a place of dysfunctional patterns that also have to be unlearned and replaced. In the case of genuine abuse or relational trauma, it is only wise to try to recover the relationship if the abuse can be eliminated first (something that is often extremely difficult to accomplish).
There are, therefore, a number of things that generally have to be in place in order to rebuild the relationship if the effort is going to be successful. A partial list is below:
Both people have to want to salvage the relationship.
While this sounds obvious, it is not something that people in difficult relationships have often given deep thought to. They certainly want to feel better, but that is different than committing long term to the relationship as the way to feel better. When only one person is committed, the process is not likely to be successful regardless.
Both people must be able to articulate why being in the relationship could/would be better than being out of it.
Like the requirement above, finding the significant motivation necessary to commit to the process typically requires understanding why that commitment would be worth it in the first place.
There has to be something foundational to build on and worth saving.
Long term, intimate relationships, are, by definition, labor intensive. Rebuilding is even more intensive to begin with and, like remodeling a home, if the foundation will not support what is built on top of it, even flashy upgrades will collapse.
Both people must be fully committed to acting in good faith and assuming the other person is too.
When recovering from raw emotional wounds that have resulted in behavioral patterns that conspire against the health of the relationship, it is essential that both people enter the reconstruction process from a place of good faith, believing the other person is too, so that the process can survive inevitable mistakes and setbacks, i.e., “what you did really hurt me, but I know that was an old pattern talking and that you are committed to doing better.”
Each person must be willing to work on issues that they individually bring to the relationship.
Relationships require at least two people and each of those people bring a lifetime of “stuff” to the relationship. Often, a “problem” in a relationship is not actually about the relationship, but about an unresolved issue with one of the partners.
Each person must be willing to take fairly substantial risk related to their own relational wounds.
Just like building intimacy, rebuilding intimacy requires being emotionally vulnerable, which means taking a risk that might not work out. On the other hand, avoiding risk will mitigate against intimacy by default.
Both people must be able to take the “long view” to repairing/rebuilding the relationship.
Although dysfunctional, hurtful relationships can certainly be distressing, they actually take less work than fixing the relationship does. In order to recover the relationship, both people have to be willing to invest significant effort over an extended period of time in order to replace dysfunctional, maladaptive patterns with functional, adaptive ones.
The primary goal in rebuilding or saving a relationship is to create a relational reality that supports sustainable intimacy. Therefore, each person must regularly engage in communication and behavior that feels intimate. Typically, that includes things like vulnerability, authenticity, trust, safety, attraction, shared interest, occasional subordination of one’s own needs, healthy conflict, repair after rupture, good faith, care, honesty, respect, etc. Not all of these things are required all the time, but relationships in which intimacy is strong and resilient tend to be rewarding and sustainable even during difficult situations and periods.
While it is possible for a couple to engage the process described here by themselves, it is a very heavy lift even for skilled partners and often benefits from professional support from a therapist with experience supporting relationships. How long this repair process takes depends on how much “damage” has to be undone, how committed each person is, and what external factors either support or mitigate against the relationship. Regardless, the solid replacement of dysfunctional patterns with adaptive ones is necessary to sustain intimacy, and thus the relationship, going forward. Some examples of concrete relationship repair practices are offered below. This is not an exhaustive list and not all items apply to every relationship.
Here are some concrete practices and skills essential for relationship repair:
Communication Skills
Active listening – Fully focusing on your partner without planning your response, reflecting back what you heard (“So what I’m hearing is…”), and asking clarifying questions before reacting.
“I” statements – Expressing feelings and needs without blame: “I feel hurt when plans change last minute because I value our time together” rather than “You always cancel on me.”
Non-defensive responses – When receiving criticism, pausing before responding, acknowledging valid points even when it’s uncomfortable, and resisting the urge to immediately counterattack or justify.
Emotional Regulation
Recognizing your triggers – Identifying what situations or words activate old wounds, and learning to notice your physical/emotional state before you react.
Taking timeouts effectively – When overwhelmed, calling a pause (“I need 20 minutes to calm down, then I want to continue this conversation”) rather than stonewalling or walking away indefinitely.
Self-soothing techniques – Deep breathing, grounding exercises, or brief physical activity to manage intense emotions so you can engage constructively.
Accountability and Repair
Genuine apologies – Taking full responsibility without minimizing, making excuses, or adding “but you…” A complete apology includes: acknowledging the specific harm, expressing genuine remorse, explaining what you’ll do differently, and following through.
Making amends – Going beyond words to demonstrate change through consistent actions over time.
Accepting apologies graciously – When your partner apologizes sincerely, acknowledging their effort rather than immediately listing other grievances or withholding forgiveness as punishment.
Vulnerability Practices
Sharing fears and insecurities – Revealing not just anger but the hurt, fear, or shame underneath: “When you criticized my cooking, I felt ashamed because I was trying to do something special for you.”
Asking for what you need directly – “I need reassurance right now” or “I need you to just listen without trying to fix this” rather than expecting your partner to read your mind.
Expressing appreciation specifically – Regularly noting concrete things your partner does: “I noticed you’ve been coming home earlier this week and it makes me feel like a priority.”
Conflict Management
Staying on topic – Addressing one issue at a time rather than bringing up past grievances or kitchen-sinking (“And another thing…”).
Identifying the real issue – Learning to distinguish between the surface complaint (dishes left in the sink) and the underlying need (feeling respected and valued).
Finding compromise – Both people offering solutions and being willing to meet in the middle, rather than either demanding their way or martyring themselves.
Agreeing to disagree – Recognizing some differences won’t be resolved and that’s okay; focusing on understanding rather than winning.
Trust-Building Actions
Following through consistently – Doing what you say you’ll do, especially small daily commitments, to rebuild reliability.
Transparency – Sharing information proactively rather than waiting to be asked, especially about things that have been sources of conflict.
Honoring boundaries – Respecting limits your partner has set, even when you don’t fully understand or agree with them.
Intimacy Cultivation
Regular check-ins – Setting aside time weekly to discuss the relationship itself: what’s working, what needs attention, how each person is feeling.
Intentional quality time – Creating phone-free, distraction-free time together doing activities you both enjoy or trying new experiences together.
Physical affection without expectations – Hugs, hand-holding, or other non-sexual touch that communicates care and connection.
Sexual touch – If the relationship appropriately includes sex, finding time to connect sexually with a focus on connection, not performance.
Expressing admiration – Regularly sharing what you genuinely respect or admire about your partner.
Pattern Interruption
Naming the pattern in the moment – “I think we’re falling into that cycle where I withdraw and you pursue. Can we pause and try differently?”
Creating new scripts – Deliberately planning alternative responses to recurring conflicts before they happen.
Catching yourself early – Recognizing when you’re beginning old behaviors and course-correcting before full escalation.
Ongoing Maintenance
Regular relationship rituals – Weekly date nights, daily connection moments, relationship reviews, or whatever structure helps maintain intentionality.
Continued learning – Reading about relationships together, attending workshops, or working with a therapist even when things are going well.
Celebrating progress – Acknowledging improvements and efforts, not just focusing on what still needs work.
These skills don’t develop overnight. Most people need practice, will make mistakes, and benefit from professional guidance in learning and applying them consistently.
Summary
Rebuilding a damaged long-term relationship is more difficult than simply “doing things better” because partners have often developed negative associations with the relationship itself and have fallen into dysfunctional patterns that must be unlearned.
Prerequisites for successful repair:
Both people must genuinely want to save the relationship (not just feel better)
Both can articulate why staying together is better than separating
A solid foundation exists worth building on
Both commit to acting in good faith and assuming the partner is too
Each person addresses their individual issues
Both accept this requires sustained effort over extended time
The goal is creating sustainable intimacy through regular vulnerable, authentic communication and behavior including trust, safety, respect, healthy conflict, and repair after rupture.
Key repair practices include:
Communication: Active listening, “I” statements, non-defensive responses
Accountability: Genuine apologies, making amends, gracious acceptance
Vulnerability: Sharing fears, asking directly for needs, expressing appreciation
Conflict management: Staying on topic, finding compromise, agreeing to disagree
Trust-building: Following through, transparency, honoring boundaries
Intimacy cultivation: Regular check-ins, quality time, physical affection
Pattern interruption: Naming dysfunctional cycles and creating new responses Professional therapy support for the process described here is often beneficial.
The timeline depends on the extent of damage in the relationship, commitment level, and external factors. Success requires replacing dysfunctional patterns with adaptive ones consistently over time.
Boundaries in relationships (any kind of relationship) can not only be protective, they can actually improve the relationship if they are thoughtful, well-communicated, and consistently enforced. They often bring people closer rather than pushing them apart by preventing resentment from building up when one person consistently subordinates him or herself to another. When one is clear about their limits, they can show up more fully and authentically in the relationship. Boundaries also model self-respect, which often encourages others to be respectful as well.
Boundaries often reduce conflict and relational stress by establishing clear expectations. Instead of people guessing what’s okay or assuming what both people need, boundaries create a shared understanding. This typically makes interactions more predictable and comfortable for everyone involved.
When do boundaries make sense?
Signs that boundaries in a relationship might be helpful include noticing that you are frequently feeling resentful, irritable, misunderstood, ignored, or burned out by your interactions with another person.
However, boundaries by themselves are not typically a good tool for communicating one’s needs or trying to control another person’s behavior. They also typically don’t work well as a “heat of the moment” response to a real or perceived slight or as a means of eliminating all distress in relationships, which by definition, include interactions that don’t always feel good or affirming. On the other hand, when boundaries are well thought out, clearly articulated, reasonable and enforceable, they can support the health of relationships and the people in them.
Common Types of Boundaries
Although boundaries are often different based on the nature of the relationship, typical categories of boundaries include areas such as emotional, physical, sexual, financial, spiritual, language, time, etc. A boundary is a limit one sets about what they’re willing to accept or participate in. It’s about defining what’s okay and not okay for you, and what you’ll do in response—not about controlling what others do.
How Setting Boundaries Can Help a Relationship
Setting boundaries can play a vital role in fostering healthy, respectful, and fulfilling relationships. Here are some key benefits:
Benefit
Description
Impact on Relationship
Promotes Mutual Respect
Boundaries help establish respect for individual needs and values.
Protecting personal space and emotions reduces anxiety and stress.
Contributes to overall well-being and relationship satisfaction.
Mitigates Resentment
Clearly defined boundaries help avoid misunderstandings.
Reduces feelings of frustration and anger.
Facilitates Personal Growth
Encouraging individuality in a relationship fosters personal development.
Supports both partners in their personal journeys.
Establishes Accountability
Boundaries allow partners to hold each other responsible for their actions.
Promotes a sense of responsibility in the relationship.
Improves Conflict Resolution
Clear boundaries clarify the limits of acceptable behavior during disagreements.
Leads to more effective and peaceful conflict resolution.
Additional Insights
Flexibility in Boundaries: Healthy boundaries can evolve as the relationship grows, allowing for adaptability and development.
Balanced Dynamics: Setting boundaries helps maintain a balance between autonomy and connection, ensuring that both partners feel valued.
By implementing and respecting boundaries, partners can enhance their relationship’s quality, leading to greater satisfaction and emotional health.
Best Practices for Boundary Setting
Establishing healthy boundaries can be very helpful for maintaining respectful and fulfilling relationships. Start by getting clear with yourself about what you want to be different. Notice when you feel resentful, drained, or uncomfortable—these feelings often signal where boundaries are missing. Reflect on your values, particularly as they relate to relationships, and what kinds of interactions align with them. Expect some discomfort, especially if you’re not used to setting boundaries. Also, people who benefited from your lack of boundaries might initially resist—they may need time to adjust. And if they fail to adjust, and the boundary is reasonable, that is important information to have about the relationship.
Here are some effective practices:
Practice
Description
Benefits
Self-Reflection
Take time to understand your own needs and limits.
Clarifies what you value and need from others.
Communicate Clearly
Use direct and honest language to express your boundaries.
Reduces misunderstandings and promotes honesty.
Be Consistent
Enforce your boundaries consistently over time.
Builds trust and reinforces your limits.
Use “I” Statements
Frame your boundaries using “I” statements to express feelings.
Makes your needs more relatable and less accusatory.
Practice Assertiveness
Stand firm in your boundaries without being aggressive.
Encourages respect and empowers you in the relationship.
Listen Actively
Be open to hearing the other person’s perspective.
Fosters mutual understanding and collaboration.
Recognize When to Flex
Understand that some boundaries may need to evolve.
Allows for growth and adaptation in the relationship.
Seek Support if Needed
Consider talking to a trusted friend or therapist about your boundaries.
Provides additional perspective and guidance.
Additional Tips
Start Small: If setting boundaries feels challenging, begin with minor ones to build confidence.
Be Patient: Allow time for the other person to adjust to the new boundaries.
Check-in Regularly: Periodically assess how well the boundaries are working for both partners.
Engaging in these practices helps create a healthier relationship dynamic where both individuals feel respected and valued.
Unenforceable Boundaries
Keep in mind that some boundaries work well and other do not, often because they are not realistically enforceable. These boundaries often lead to frustration and misunderstandings in relationships. Here are some characteristics and examples:
Characteristic
Description
Implications
Vague or Ambiguous
Boundaries that are not clearly defined or articulated.
Can confuse the other person about expectations.
Expectations Without Communication
Assuming the other person knows your boundaries without discussing them.
Leads to misinterpretations and unmet needs.
Inconsistent
Frequently changing or not maintaining the boundaries.
Diminishes credibility and respect for the boundary.
Dependent on Others’ Behavior
Boundaries that require others to change their behaviors/beliefs.
Causes frustration when the other person does not comply.
High Emotional Burden
Setting boundaries tied to emotional reactions without clear guidelines.
Creates stress and confusion for both parties.
Common Examples
“I won’t tolerate being disrespected” without specifying what disrespect looks like.
“You should know how I feel” implies the other person ought to be a mind reader.
“I need some space” without clearly defining what “space” means (e.g., physical distance, time apart).
What Not to Do When Setting Boundaries
Don’t weaponize boundaries: Using boundaries to punish another person obviously compromises the benefits of boundary setting and makes the boundary itself a source of distress and conflict.
Don’t disguise an ultimatum as a boundary: Although there is a place for ultimatums in relationships, by definition, they are one-sided and not open to shared commitment.
Don’t use boundaries as a means to avoid difficult issues or stonewall important communication.
Don’t use boundaries as a way to manipulate another person.
Summary
In short, boundaries are limits you set about what you’re willing to accept or participate in. When thoughtfully implemented and consistently enforced, they strengthen relationships by mitigating resentment, encouraging authenticity, and establishing clear expectations.
Key points: Boundaries work best when they’re well thought out, clearly communicated, reasonable, and enforceable. They’re useful when you feel resentful, drained, or burned out—but shouldn’t be used to control others’ behavior, as ultimatums, or as “heat of the moment” reactions.
Benefits include: promoting mutual respect, encouraging open communication, reducing resentment, and improving conflict resolution.
Best practices: Reflect on your needs, communicate clearly using “I” statements, be consistent, and expect some initial discomfort or resistance.
Avoid: Vague boundaries, expecting others to read your mind, inconsistency, trying to control others’ behavior, weaponizing boundaries as punishment, or using them to avoid necessary conversations.
The core principle: Boundaries define what you will do or accept—not what others must do. They should leave room for others (and you) to make their own choices, including modifying or leaving the relationship.
