Traumatic Cognitive Dissonance with Dr Peter Salerno

Hello, everybody. Thanks for joining us today today. I'm talking with Dr. Peter Salerno.

Peter is a retired licensed psychotherapist. He also has a doctorate in clinical psychology.

He's worked with survivors of coercive relationships. He spent years studying things like personality disorders,

pathological abuse, as well as complex trauma. He might be familiar to you.

You may have seen him on the TV series where he shares his insights into psychopathy, predatory behavior,

and the TV series Ted Bundy falling for a killer.

Peter is also the author of many books, including Cruelty by Nature, The Science of Intentional Abuse,

The Nature and Nurture of Narcissism, a most recently traumatic cognitive dissonance,

which is something I hope we're going to be talking about today.

First of all, thank you for joining us.

Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

I suppose it's worth it by getting with all of the questions, because there's so many I have.

But to begin with, what's led you into the work you're doing? What's been your journey?

Yeah, great question. Well, I was interested in personality theory from the beginning to my education,

but I sort of had questions about enduring patterns of behavior from my own family system,

things that I noticed that I always were kind of confusing to me.

And then also I was very curious about the differences between the differences between

like intentional behavior or unconscious behavior and things like that.

Because when we learn about psychology oftentimes, we learn about it from the perspective of what's governing us from the inside

and what we necessarily, we don't necessarily have control of.

So I was really curious about how do we really understand the differences in behavior?

And then a personal experience and a relationship really that I felt like I needed a different kind of education

to get out of and understand is probably one of the biggest motivating factors as well.

Yeah, I think that's quite common with a lot of people.

There is a bit of a cliche. It's almost like a bit of a joke that if you're in a relationship with someone who's really difficult,

you know, by the time you come out of it, you feel like you've got a PhD in predator's toxic behavior.

It is something of a joke, but I think there is something in that.

And there is also something I think quite healthy and helpful in educating ourselves,

other people, again, looking at the difference between what might be toxic, predatory, malicious behavior

and what could be just something that's maladaptive.

Right, exactly.

So I'm just wondering on that then, you think of narcissistic personality disorder.

The difference between the narcissistic, the personality disorder

or what could be high-treat subclinical high narcissism if you want to look at it that way.

Look at the DSM. How well do you think that would be distinguished, the difference between the two?

That's a really good question.

The DSM usually gets accused of only focusing more on the grant, like with the categorical model,

you know, only focusing on this grandiose version of the narcissist, right?

What we see in trait narcissism is there's not really, we could come up with countless subtypes

because of the way those traits can present and express.

But I think that the DSM does a good job of, you know, indicating the type of narcissist

who is really trait driven.

So I think that there are good parallels between the categorical explanation of NPT

and now the alternative model or the dimensional model, it's very trait-based.

I think as well, and please correct me, but when I hear the word disorder, the key word is disorder.

It's a very distinct diagnosis, whatever, even obsessive compulsive disorder.

And the disorder high I would view it is looking at the impact that has on somebody's day-to-day functioning,

but also the impact that would have on the relationship with not just themselves,

but even the world around them with other people.

Where I think the difference is with the high trait narcissism, there is going to be, you know,

the traits are going to be elements of the grandiosity and so on.

Not so high that there isn't room for maybe growth, change, learning, things like that.

With the disorder, I'm not saying it's impossible again, you can correct me,

but it's like a fixed sort of thing. It's like a default setting.

Would that be fair?

I would say that's very fair to say.

And, you know, the way we can also distinguish the difference between trait narcissism and the general population

and disordered people in the general population, we're looking for a greater than average,

like, well, let's say for example, if we see that there's a heritable component to these traits, to all traits, right?

I mean, environment certainly matters, but there are traits that are inherent in some individuals at different degrees, different levels.

So, when we talk about disorder, we want to differentiate between like the average number of differences among people

and then something that's contributing to make an extreme excessive difference, you know, based on these traits,

you know, how high are these traits operating on the continuum of each individual, right?

And the ones that we would call disordered, I would say if we're operating on a continuum of mild to moderate, to severe, to extreme,

let's say the disordered ones fall just before the severe and make up the rest of the continuum

because we're talking about like you said, inter-personal and intra-personal problems, right?

So, the more problems that you're seeing in impairment and functioning in your personal life

that's when we're going to start seeing, okay, well, we can't just say this is different.

I mean, it's not operating normally, so we would call it abnormal or disordered, right?

I think as well, something that you would talk about, you would talk about the genetic component,

the difference between the nature and nurture.

There can be things that are environmental, so in other words, you're looking at maybe learned behaviors and so on.

Talk a bit more about the genetic component of that, just for the audience.

The reason I'm asking is, so many people are saying things like, at the very root of narcissism is trauma.

No, I'm not saying that there can be, I'm not saying there isn't, but the difference between the genetic and the environment.

Well, something that I have been trying to accomplish is to help people understand that there was never a separation between nature and nurture.

It was an artificial separation that took flight and got very popular, and it's not going to fade away any time soon.

There's really no such thing as nature versus nurture. I mean, they're dynamically intertwined, right?

What I think is really important is that recent research in fields like behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology,

we're starting to see that there's just as much of an impact, and in some cases more related to the DNA differences of individuals as far as contributing to disorder.

There's just as much as an impact, if not more, as environment.

And so, in a lot of my work, I'm over-emphasizing that half or side because it's been so under-emphasized or deflated in favor of this environmental determinism.

But I also really would like to try to simplify what genetic means, because I think people can get into this dichotomous area of,

it means that it's hardwired or fixed, and there's no flexibility whatsoever.

It means that you're born with a disorder, like the moment that you're entering into the world.

So a lot of these things I think need to be clarified.

So just to answer your question, when we use the term genetic, what we're referring to is differences in the DNA sequence.

So mutations are alterations, that a lot of the time are random from the moment of conception, different variations and things like that.

And all of those little variations, a lot of them can add up to create a cumulative effect that's very significant.

So we all have the same genes and the same traits.

It's not like certain people have exclusive genes or exclusive traits.

So that's the first clarification.

They may well heighten in different situations, but then they come down again.

Right, absolutely.

So we all share these though.

When someone has a greater than average number of differences that contribute to a particular psychological trait,

then that's when we can start seeing a disorder, the potential for a disorder to develop just solely based on how,

how the coding is, if you will, how the start of material operates.

So there's a predisposition.

Not a predestination or a predetermination, but certainly we can talk about probability based on the predisposition.

I think that's a very useful, very interesting distinction between the two.

Yeah.

Something else that you talk about, and it's the Grand Theos element, you think at the core of it, as we mentioned a moment ago,

people believe at the core of it is trauma.

You talk about it's the Grand Theosity, that kind of encapsulates everything.

I mean, not everything.

If I phrased it right, sorry, we'll go.

Yeah, I would say if we were to take the most deficient trait in a narcissist, and we had to pick one,

like the central feature, like, yes, there's so many other ways it can present, but what's the central feature?

Is this, why is this narcissism and not trauma?

Why is this narcissism not schizophrenia?

If we really break it down, Grand Theosity makes the most sense.

That could actually even explain if we want to split it into, like, compensatory grandiosity,

you know, making up for shortcomings or whatever.

Or just the sincere belief that you're superior.

It's really grandiosity that fuels the narcissism engine.

And I think there's different things that can motivate grandiosity, certainly.

But the reason why I would say that's the most, you know, the central trait or the main trait,

is because what narcissists don't believe in is equality.

Yep.

Okay, so the deficiency is equality because the grandiosity is so extreme.

And even undiagnosed people with that level of grandiosity are going to have the same interpersonal problems as narcissists,

because that's, if you really look at it, that's really what it comes down to.

It's a sincere belief in superiority, which means there's a disbelief and equality.

So there can't be, there can't not be interpersonal impairment if one person is sincerely believing that they are superior,

and no one is equal to them.

And by the relationships tend to be, for one to a better term, the tend to be hierarchical.

They're always up there, everyone else is there, even those closest to them.

Yes, you're right, it's a hierarchical system.

And it's also, they are the subject and you're the object in this relationship.

They have subjectivity, they're allowed to maintain that, but you can't.

You have to be completely, you know, seen in viewed as an object in order for this kind of relational system to work.

And there's this, when people talk about this, there's constant need for attention and validation.

I believe sometimes what you're looking at is, that's there, but it's looking for people to collude.

Yes, absolutely.

No, you're absolutely right. They don't stop at validation.

In fact, what, what a lot of people just make, they make this distinction.

Well, it says there's a need for attention, and we can interpret that as validation.

What often is the cases, they're just, they're needing confirmation.

So I think they go beyond, like you said, they go beyond validation.

That's not, that's not very meaningful to them.

And the more you validate them, the more they exploit you.

By the way, it doesn't actually nurture this, this empathy development or anything.

They oftentimes get more exploitative when you validate them.

But I think what they're really, they're really looking for a cognitive confirmation,

more so than an emotional validation.

Yeah, which is why I use the word collusion.

It's people that walk along and believing in the fantasy and feeding the fantasy

and being subservient and so on.

So that's all elements, collusion, collusion there.

The other element of the grandiosity, I'm imagining seeing the link between the two,

is the sense of entitlement.

Yeah, the deserving of the spatial treatment is very, very common with narcissistic people,

not just the entitlement that they're deserving and spatial, but some,

the rules don't apply to them.

Right.

Normal rules don't apply, normal societal rules, the workplace rules,

you know, they're above such things.

I'm just wondering, I know what those manifests in different ways.

When you hear things like the vulnerable narcissist.

Yes.

We are from wrong.

I do believe the grandiosity and the entitlement, everything.

It's still there at the manifest, manifest in the way you see it,

maybe anxiety, you see little mood, things like that.

Yeah.

I believe it's in a lot of cases.

It's because no one has seen them as special.

And I think that what causes the little mood and so on.

So I'm wondering what are your thoughts on that?

Am I off the mark there or?

No, no, no, no, not at all.

It's interesting.

There's an interesting distinction in, like, I guess what we could call narcissistic depression

versus like a kind of a clinical depression and a more, you know, neurotypical individual.

They see themselves, they get depressed when they see themselves as useless, but not necessarily

worthless.

I don't know.

So if they can't determine utility because people aren't seeing their greatness, right?

And then what they see themselves as useless or meaningless rather than, rather than worthless.

So it's almost like this, it's more of a self pity than a sadness.

It's like they feel sorry for themselves.

They don't feel sorry, like, they don't feel bad about themselves.

They feel sorry for themselves.

That makes sense.

I know what's all this, yeah.

Again, without what you would say may be the sense of unfairness.

Yeah.

Yes.

And it's also, unlike their grandiose counterparts, the way I freeze things, I know it's not what

you wouldn't find as in DSM.

But the grandiose narcissist is almost like they appear and you can see them coming.

It's almost like they arrive with a thin chain.

If you know what I mean, they have a fanfare and everything.

But the covert are more really under the radar.

And they present a version of themselves where they are maybe make and humble.

It's a false kind of humility.

Yes.

And I'm wondering when people get involved in narcissistic relationships, you might be impressed by the grandiosity.

What looks like confidence, more like an over self confidence.

And it's not really based on anything.

There's nothing to it, really.

But with a covert narcissist, you meet someone like that.

It's that they can be very good at presenting themselves as they are caring and they are empathy and so on.

I'm just wondering, looking at the difference between the two.

I'm just wondering and a lot of people, a lot of cases where people have been in those, those of course of relationships.

Maybe in the early stages, what they, what they were meeting with was the covert as opposed to the audacity.

Absolutely.

You, sorry, you would agree.

I would agree, but I would also, I think you mentioned this earlier.

I think that the grandiosity is just as present in the covert or the vulnerable.

It's just, it's just expressed differently.

I mean, people can actually have a, like a, like a passive grandiosity versus an active grandiosity.

So I think sometimes the, the overt one that you, like you said, you can see coming a mile away.

They have like a fan club with them. I mean, they're announcing the results.

They don't necessarily need to convince you of their grandiosity.

You should just know.

So in a way that grandiosity is actually kind of passive because they're not going to make you see it.

They're just going to expect you to see it.

And if you don't, then you're, you're an idiot.

You're a nobody here.

Right.

Whereas with the, the, the covert oftentimes, there's this, like you said, this empathic presentation,

this feeling deeply presentation, which can compel rescuing, right?

Yeah.

And so the grandiosity is like more like they, it could come off as sort of like fragile or defensive.

You know, like how dare you not see how much pain I'm in or how much you've caused me to, you know,

when they want to not take accountability for something.

So it, I mean, that it can be very, it can look very different.

But it's, I think it's still rooted in the same trip.

It's, I mean, the way I phrased it a couple of times, it's the, my outrage is evidence of how bargey or,

my pain and my misery is evidence of how much you've hurt me.

Yeah.

And that's sort of lying.

That's sort of gasoline.

That's sort of long term reprogramming.

Yeah.

But that's where, you know, if you think of the lens and you think of that, that's where you lose your voice

because you don't know what to do or say to study, even just to search yourself on a minimal level.

Right.

Yeah.

So it kind of leads me on to my next question.

But when you meet people like this, whether it's a romantic relationship, whether it's a friendship,

even I've come across this in workplaces, where this shared fantasy, if you will,

starts to become created and be interested in hearing your thoughts on not fantasy that people get hooked into.

Well, I think, I think something, I was actually thinking about this earlier today,

the idea of idealization.

And, you know, depending on what kind of theoretical or conceptual lens you frame these things,

sometimes, you know, idealization isn't necessarily a terrible thing if you're kind of temporarily idealizing the right person, a safe person.

Because what they're going to do with that idealization is they're going to reframe it into reality.

Yeah.

And they're going to not exploit you with it, right?

So what's interesting is like these people, they do all the same things that normal people do.

And in the beginning, it's assumed that everybody does those things because that's just who they are, right?

So it's not like they're reinventing anything.

They're just taking something that everyone takes the toilet.

And they exploit it.

So this shared fantasy, I think, one of the things is they've assumed a role,

and they're going to sort of like play that role and see how you respond to it, right?

And oftentimes it contains this intensity that's mistaken for intimacy.

And so I think just the shared fantasy can start operating like right then and there.

Like you start to, you have this impression of this person that they're trying to get you to buy into,

and it seems authentic because the intensity makes you feel so good, right?

So it's kind of you're intoxicated as you're getting to know this person.

And now all your prior information that is already getting embedded is fun, safe, charismatic, charming, sweet, kind,

compatible, you know, and it's not one thing is entering in where you're thinking possibly being deceived.

Like that's not where your mind goes in that in those states.

So they use something as basic as idealization, which is something that we all kind of tend to fall into

and we're encounter something novel.

There's nothing pathological about that.

But they pathologize you with it by exploiting it.

And so I think that the share, I would say that this is an inter personal system when you dealing with a personality disorder,

where you stop knowing when you, where you end and they begin,

but I've seen people just fight for dear life for the maintain the fantasy,

even when the other person is obviously giving it up and they might not even be covertly given it,

it might be more over at that point.

And you're still fighting for it.

Yeah, I think I would agree whenever we meet, we all idealize.

And if you were to look at it as opposed through a Rogerian kind of language,

you're looking at the difference between the real and the ideal.

What we're doing is we're looking at all the ideal.

Okay, a little bit of disclosure, I don't often do this.

When I met my partner and we're getting to know each other,

and we're going for dinner and she's saying things to me like she said,

what does it you do for a living?

Oh, that sounds really interesting.

That's amazing.

I bet you're brilliant with people.

I can't imagine you ever getting stressed or angry at Bet you've got everything sort of.

And I have to tell you, my ego's hitting the ceiling.

I'm loving every word.

Please tell me more about how great I have.

Six months later, she walks into my kitchen and she caught me scratching my back with a fork.

And then I put it back in the drawer and she just screamed, what the hell are you doing?

I might have used that fork.

The real and the ideal very rarely made.

And it's often the distance between the two.

Now, what we often do is we, if you will, we start to come back down to earth.

We start to accept the real.

We start to accept that some of it is a fantasy.

It's a romantic fantasy.

We have words and all.

We get things from them.

We scratch your back with the fork once in a while.

Little things like that.

And we adopt and we change.

With someone who's narcissistic, I think it can go one of both ways.

So you can tell me what you think.

There is the person who is continually fighting for the idea.

Because they have maybe bought into it.

They believe they need it.

And this is the only person who can give it to them.

They've been led to believe it.

Yet, they're always short of the mark.

They're never quite reaching it.

So it's always being withheld.

So the person has to try harder and harder and harder.

And during and all of their energy, their resources, their identity and everything.

On the other side of that, if you look at a narcissistic person,

they have maybe idealized as well.

But the difference is, you're not the version of you that I created in my head.

How dare you?

You're the one that's getting the wrong.

So that's where I think the difference is.

And that idealization states that fantasy.

One's trying to reach it.

And the other one's punishing for naught.

Absolutely.

100%.

Yeah, because there's going to be with the type of idealization that a narcissist would have.

For example, it's pathological in the sense that it's dichotomous.

It's all or nothing, right?

Displitting.

Yeah, it's splitting.

And so they set themselves up to fail.

Because they never reverse.

Narcissist never reversed dichotomize, meaning they never put the blame back on themselves.

And, you know, I felt short of my ideal.

So this is why I think they don't think that way.

They have a pretty stable self image, which is all externalizing.

Right.

And so they're eventually, you're going to eventually say something that gets them to stop seeing you.

In the way that they had hoped.

And you're inevitably going to fall from grace.

And then, you know, they're not going to necessarily be complete.

You know, a front about that in any way, shape, or form.

So a lot of their dramatization will look like effort to work it out.

They're just frustrated or they're just, you know, but they're already out.

You know, they're just devaluing at this point.

Yeah, that's the there is that we talk about the lack of empathy.

I think the part of the empathy, the lack of the empathy is the lack of introspection, the lack of self reflection.

They struggle with that.

It's you're right.

Everything just gets externalized.

Yeah.

You know, they didn't get the job because they were cheated somehow.

Or someone won the race, but they let them win, you know, out of their generosity.

Everything is being externalized.

Again, looking at the distance there is between that real and any devil.

I'm just wondering, going on to your work, which I think is really, really interesting to mention

just before we record.

And it's a fascinating concept that makes so much sense.

We're all going to experience cognitive dissonance to some degree.

Sometimes we'll do it daily, you know, I want, there's a lovely bit of cake there, but I can't have it

because I'm about to have Medina and yet I want the cake, you know, just on a small level.

The traumatic cognitive dissonance.

I love to hear you talk about that.

I'm reading your book at the moment, but to hear you talk about it.

Yeah, absolutely.

So the way that I would differentiate the reason why I thought of the concept

or I wanted to research something like it was because I noticed that there were people

who could potentially meet the criteria for, we'll say, complex PTSD in a relationship, as a result of a relationship.

But then there was these other kind of symptoms and features that seemed like they went beyond what we typically define as complex trauma.

And those are the symptoms that were resulting from the intentional covert manipulation on the part of a pathological person.

They weren't just having trauma.

They were also having these other kind of disorienting results, like side effects from manipulation, chronic manipulation and deception.

So there's a distinguishing factor there.

And the reason why I would call it traumatic cognitive dissonance versus the kind that you just described that we all experience is this dissonance wouldn't develop unless somebody was intentionally manipulating you.

So that's the different component that I would say is traumatizing is that it's not like your mind just created these two scenarios because you don't know what to have for lunch because your mind, like every other mind gets confused and can't choose.

This is more like you wouldn't have this dissonance unless it was implanted in you by someone who is trying to intentionally distort your reality and thereby give you dissonance.

They are, if you will, they are conflicting beliefs about yourself.

That has been very 21st century term. It's like this malware has been put in.

I'm just thinking, you know, saying no, having friends of your own, having interests of your own, that's bad, that's selfish.

And yes, there's part of you knows that that's not, that's that's normal. There's room in your life for more than one person.

There are some things may be in your own best interest. You're not taking anything from anyone else.

But you've been in a situation for so long where you've been told that it has.

Yeah. And it's just it would be fair to say it's like it's running on a loop.

Absolutely.

And another thing is the person that you're idealizing, you still have that prior information of the idealization.

So your mind is really trying to take like imagine if all your prior information was that somebody was good to you.

Yeah.

So this looks like this looks like an exception, not the rule, because you keep going back to the prior that's already established.

So your mind is going to try to edit, you know, reality even to fit the thing that it knows, the narrative that it knows, because, you know, it would be too shocked or stunned to see that this other thing might be something that you should investigate.

So I think you are already starting with a reasonable bias when this happens.

And then the manipulation kind of tilts you towards, you know, the favor of the person who is exploiting them.

Yeah.

Another way that can manifest suggesting is the belief, the only person who can heal you as the person who's hurting you.

Right.

And that's again, that gets us stuck in the loop.

And there's something I've said so many times, I've said in live streams and so on.

What happens when we're doing it?

First of all, we don't like things that don't make sense as a species.

We really don't like to see patterns causing the fact that I'm in reason.

I always say that we're the only animal that needs to know things that we don't know.

That's one of the reasons why we're constantly ruminating.

It's like we're trying to find a new piece of information, something to fit into place.

I think what we're really doing is, it's like we make our recovery, our sense of reality, if you will.

It's almost like that's dependent on the other person.

And if someone is really good at what they do in the sense of manipulation, coercion, things like that,

and they've been plant in this, not just telling you to your face that your life has been as over its no-mind,

but it's been a little tiny piece at a time.

Yes.

That's very, very hard to untangle that, I guess, is the way I've said it.

Which it's been to another question that was somebody in the comments section had asked me to put this out,

about the traumatic cognitive dissonance, different ways to try to get through that,

to try to untangle that, to separate those opposing beliefs.

I can tell you what I think, but you're a concept, so you can tell me how far I am often.

Yeah.

I'm a big believer that the antidote to toxic people are decent people.

That's one way to start.

What do you think?

I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more.

I experienced that personally, and professionally watching other people experience it,

and seeing how necessary it is, I think reality testing can begin with good people that you can trust,

safe people, the right people.

If you have more experiences of that, obviously there's going to be, if you've been betrayed,

it's going to take some time, but I think you should take your time with anybody.

But I absolutely believe in the healing power of support from the right people.

I don't really agree.

There is something in using the word again, the validation.

It's just where I think things like support groups, and things like that.

But I always emphasize to people, make sure you're going to ones that are well-moderated,

you don't want an echo chamber, people just, it's a competition if I heard they are.

It's something where there's going to be encouragement.

They're going to hear your story, you're going to listen to other people's stories,

shared experiences, but there's also going to be encouragement and support.

I tried this, it didn't work.

You might want to try something else instead.

All of that sort of thing.

That's what I mean by decent people.

And even just on even a smaller level, whether it's, it's, you know,

somebody holds a door open for you.

It just out of good manners.

Pay attention to that, because sometimes when you lose little things.

But you had, you had mentioned something a moment ago, about, about the beliefs.

This is the thing about beliefs, the best of my knowledge, the reader factor feeling.

And it's, it's, it's, it's trying to discern the difference between the two.

I think also some of those beliefs are things we were led to believe.

So she says about examining them, testing.

Yeah.

What you're really doing is, would you say you're looking for evidence for or against?

Well, I think we're looking for evidence, but we're also just looking for not necessarily.

I think sometimes if it's applicable evidence of guilt, but also just evidence of,

that you know the facts, right?

Because it's just, it's, it's, to resolve the dissonance, a decision needs to be made.

Right. And these types of individuals, by nature, the way they, they, they're dramatic.

And rather than problem solving and collaborative and relationships.

So what happens is they have you leading with more questions than answers.

And so you're stuck in this ambiguity.

So the dissonance is, you know, endless.

And then it starts to become disorienting.

People start reporting even like physical shutdown in a lot of ways.

So back to your question about beliefs.

I think you need, you need two things.

You need a more regulated nervous system so that when you start examining these beliefs,

you can create new neural pathways where you're proceeding things in a more accurate way,

than the way that you were convinced or brainwashed or coerced into, into believing.

So yeah, you go back and you examine the beliefs that's originated in the context of the,

the relationship that are related to yourself, the other person,

and the relationship as a whole, because all of those things are getting manipulated

throughout the course of the dynamic.

And so your beliefs are basically what you see in your world.

So it's important to examine them, especially if they're false or if they were,

you know, embedded into your thinking structure by someone who benefited from,

from you having that belief.

Yeah, someone who could control you through that.

Yeah, again, like Noah's a bad word.

Don't say no to me. Look at the pain you're causing.

Yeah.

It's like that.

I'm wondering as well, another aspect, if you see how this would help with long time,

within the traumatic cognitive dissonance.

I think sometimes it is trying to recalibrate our moral compass.

Yeah.

Because sometimes we just have to call it out for what it was.

It was bad, it was wicked, it was whatever it was.

Give it an aim.

Yeah.

I agree.

I think it's very hard for people to, to a lot of people wrestle with that,

with naming.

Because again, you mentioned earlier, there's the person who,

when you first met them, they're funny.

And it's not to say that this didn't go on throughout the relationship

because there's moments of fun.

Yeah, absolutely.

There's little surprise gifts.

There's passion.

There's little favors.

There's whatever.

And that's very hard to reconcile with the person who would be screaming at you,

or the person who would walk past you.

Pretend they don't know you.

Very hard to reconcile that.

And just being able to give that an aim.

Right.

Absolutely.

But it is, as I say, it's trying to recalibrate your moral compass

because we lose so much even our sense of writing wrong.

Well, I think another thing that I've seen often is the reasonable reactions

to this type of abuse, the antagonism in the provocation.

The reasonable reactions get pathologized.

So then the victim or survivor of this is often, you know,

the other person is naming their behaviors quite effortlessly.

Yeah, you're the one who's, yeah.

You're screaming.

You lose your temper.

Remember that time that you slammed the door.

You know, I feared for my life.

I think they pepper with all of this, you know,

embellishment and things like that.

But then you start thinking, oh my gosh.

Like, I would be afraid of someone's time to door.

So I probably, they probably were terrified.

Maybe I am just as bad.

Maybe I should start seeing this a bit fair.

And that's where the dissonance picks up again.

So not naming it.

You need to name it without interpreting it.

And then you move on to the next thing.

What was said, what was done?

And don't interpret the meaning of it.

Was it said or done or not?

Did that person, you know, you'll start to notice all of the little crumbs

and the little things and almost you can, you could connect the dots backwards

in a way where it would make a lot more sense how consistent the patterns of abuse were

and manipulation.

And it's a, it's one of those things.

I always say once you see it, you can't don't see it.

No, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's easy.

But I think that sometimes that is that that awakening, if you will, is a good path towards it.

It's a good start when the road to recover anyway.

Once you recognize it for what it is.

And I think it's interesting.

You mentioned about things like reactions being weaponized.

And the next thing, you know, you're being shown a YouTube video.

Look, there's what you do.

You're a narcissist, you know, things like that.

Again, since going back to recalibrating your moral compass

and looking at your belief system and so on, sometimes it's about recognizing

that if you raise your voice because someone has provoked you,

it doesn't mean you don't have responsibility for it.

It doesn't mean, you know, you didn't explode or whatever,

but sometimes it is recognizing that this is a normal response.

It's just you've been led to believe.

You do work with people.

And one of the things I like to do is I like to talk to people

who have resources, courses, books, things like that.

When it comes to the recovering from abusive relationships and so on,

sort of what would you be doing and how can people find you?

Yeah, so I actually every month I do a virtual workshop on healing

from traumatic cognitive dissonance.

So it's a Zoom meeting and people can sign up.

And it's a three hour thing.

I do two hours of presenting how it develops and in what context.

And then I go into just like a question and answer hour.

So a lot of people have given, you know, that's sort of the first steps

of figuring out, well, now how do I heal from this?

So, you know, I give a lot of examples of what techniques and resources

and things you can seek out to make sense of it.

And then I do more, I live in California.

And I'm a psychotherapist in California.

But I also do internationally.

I consult with people to, you know, they can talk with me for an hour

to kind of provide information on, and it's more educational.

And I need to know like kind of what I'm dealing with.

And is there any rhyme or reason to this behavior?

You know, what do you call this kind of a thing?

So that's another way to kind of educate yourself.

I also do support groups.

I co-facilitate support groups for people getting out of toxic relationships

or trying to restore themselves after they talk like they've kind of healed enough

and now they're looking to figure out how to discover themselves again.

So those are all things that you can find available on my website.

It's good to know that there are resources there for people.

They want to find you, they want to reach out to you.

It's the thing about the support work, the recovery as well.

It's just something you said there.

It's just brought something up on me.

Sometimes it is about trying to maybe find yourself again.

If that's the right way of putting it.

The parts of you that were, if you want to look at it in terms of like a young

would talk about the shadow cell.

Yeah.

But we'd look at the shadow cell as if they're all the bad things.

When in reality, sometimes there may be things we were led to believe were bad.

Absolutely.

Oh, necessarily.

Yeah, I think the things we were led to believe that were bad.

And it is about trying to integrate those just like even the traumatic experiences.

It's not that we ever get rid of the memories or the experiences,

but it's a concept of trying to integrate that into our experience,

even though it's still unpleasant.

Yes.

Now often say it is a little piece at a time,

but sometimes when you try to find ways to move forward,

sometimes the movie non-catches up.

I love that.

But it's about being patient with yourself, I guess.

Absolutely.

Listen, thank you for joining me this evening.

It's been very informative.

There's been a lot of stuff there.

Everybody check out Peter's books.

The one I read at the moment on traumatic cognitive dissonance is a very good one.

I would highly recommend it to anybody who's interested more in learning about that.

Check out Peter's resources.

They are there to help you.

And who knows?

Maybe we could do this against something?

I would love to.

Yeah.

Thank you for having me.

Thanks for coming along.