©2021 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Mediating high conflict disputes requires a shift from many standard mediation approaches When one or more of the parties has a high conflict personality, the process should have more structure and focus away from common mediation topics, such as emotions, the past, and interests, and instead focus more strictly on problem-solving. By having the clients participate more actively in the process, and the mediator serve more as a guide for their active participation, they are more likely to reach their own agreements and follow them. Over the past dozen years, Michael Lomax and I have developed a method that addresses these concerns called New Ways for Mediation® which adapts the mediation process with at least 10 paradigm shifts. While designed for high conflict mediation, any of them can be used in any mediation at any time. Paradigm Shift 1: Avoid trying to give the parties insight into themselves. With high conflict people, this triggers defensiveness and a feeling that you do not like them as they are. It doesn’t matter whether you say it loudly, softly, or in writing, they won’t get the insights about themselves and instead it will worsen your relationship with them. If you find yourself thinking “How can I make him see his part in this problem” or “How can I make her see how she’s sabotaging herself,” just forget about it. They just can’t connect the dots from their own behavior to what happens to them, even when their part in their own problems is significant. They have a psychological barrier to self-awareness and self-reflection. Instead, focus on educating them about their options. Paradigm Shift 2: Avoid emphasizing the past; emphasize the future. High conflict people are preoccupied with the past, defending their own behavior and criticizing other people’s behavior. When you focus on the past, you get stuck in their attack-defend cycle, which is endless. They are often looking for vengeance and vindication about the past, based on their distorted perceptions of others being totally at fault. While you may need to discuss the past somewhat, put the emphasis on the future and what they can do about it now. At the beginning of the mediation say that you are going to be focusing on the future and talking very little about the past. Don’t say you’re not talking at all about the past, because you may have to talk about it some. Whenever they get stuck blaming or talking about the past, remind them that you are focusing on the future and their proposals for what to do going forward. Paradigm Shift 3: Avoid emotional confrontations or even asking about feelings. High conflict people do not seem to go through the normal grieving and healing process that helps most people move forward in their lives after a significant loss. Sad to say, they are carrying around a lot of unresolved emotional upsets. When they focus on how they feel, they usually feel vulnerable, weak, and like a victim-in-life. Since they can’t connect the dots to their own behavior, they are confused about why things go wrong for them and feel helpless. If you ask them how they are feeling, they will usually tell you how awful they feel, because of what everyone else has done to them recently or years ago. Focusing on their feelings just makes them feel worse. Instead, focus on thinking and doing, which is when they feel better. Paradigm Shift 4: Avoid asking probing questions; teach them to ask you questions instead. Mediators are skilled at asking questions and often ask probing questions about what the parties have done before or why certain problems exist in an effort to get to “the root of the problem.” Such questions often open up the past, which is not advisable as described above. With high conflict people, the root of the problem is often their inability to take responsibility for their part in problem-solving. There often is no “root of the problem” when the personalities are the issue. Instead, mediators should teach the parties to ask them questions, especially about what their options are going forward and what others have done. Paradigm Shift 5: Avoid Opening Statements; instead ask for questions about the mediation process. There is a long-standing principle in mediation that the parties need to be heard, by allowing them each to make an Opening Statement. However, this is where many high conflict mediations fall apart. Such statements open up the past and unresolved emotions. This leads to an increase in tensions, not a decrease, especially when a high conflict person focuses on how terribly the other party or parties have behaved. This often includes some distorted perceptions that cannot be negotiated and don’t need to be discussed. The speaker often becomes more emotional and more rigid in their thinking about the dispute, and the listener often becomes angry at being attacked in front of the mediator. Instead, it is usually more productive to ask for their thoughts and questions about the process, so that they each get a chance to briefly say something, but without going into the past or trying for insight. Paradigm Shift 6: The parties make the Agenda. Traditionally, mediators have developed the Agenda after hearing the parties’ Opening Statements. Mediators are usually very good at this. However, this is a relatively simple task that should be given to the parties for several reasons. By making their own Agenda, with the guidance of the mediator, it helps the parties focus on the future and problem-solving rather than reacting to each other. It also is a joint decision-making project which can help the parties build toward making larger joint decisions. Lastly, they often change topics or bring in new issues, so that the mediator can help them stay focused or consciously agree to change topics, rather than getting into a power struggle over the mediator’s agenda. Paradigm Shift 7: The parties decide who goes first and other small process decisions. Throughout

©2021 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Personality Disorders—An Enduring Pattern of Dysfunctional Interpersonal Behavior The term personality disorder has been familiar to mental health professionals for over forty years. However, most other professionals and the general public know little about the meaning of such disorders and often operate with misconceptions about their patterns of dysfunctional behavior.  Personality disorders are officially a category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association and used throughout the world. The current version of this manual is the fifth edition, which was published in 2013 and is known as the DSM-5. I was first trained in the DSM-3 when it was published in 1980, the year I was in a field placement at the San Diego Child Guidance Clinic during my master’s in social work (MSW) degree program. This was when personality disorders were first clearly included as a category of specifically defined disorders, each with its own list of criteria. Over the next forty years I have learned a lot more about personality disorders that I now take for granted, but I still find that most people know little about them. In short, personality disorders are an enduring pattern of dysfunctional interpersonal behavior. The following are some of the most common misunderstandings: #1: Personality disorders are rare. No. In fact, the DSM-5 refers to a study that indicates that 15% of adults in the United States have one. Other studies indicate 10-13%. This is equal to or more common than the percent of people with a substance use disorder (addictions), yet most people know little about personality disorders and they are not talked about much in public. In many ways, society is treating personality disorders like it used to treat addictions fifty years ago, as hush-hush. Now there is widespread public awareness and discussion, court-ordered drunk driving programs, hospital treatment programs, insurance funding for treatment, and many families and companies can push their loved ones and employees into substance abuse treatment with “interventions.” We are just starting to see some of this awareness beginning in regard to personality disorders. #2: Personality disorders are obvious. No. Personality disorders are generally hidden disorders. There is a full range of severity of these disorders. Some people with personality disorders can function well in their jobs and communities but have serious problems in close relationships (such as families), while others cannot even work because they are so dysfunctional. People with these disorders are often not obvious to people who are dating them until they have known them for six to twelve months, or people who hire them, who often do not know until they are settled deeply into the job. They can get by in many settings for a long time. They look like everyone else on the surface. #3: Someone would know if they had a personality disorder. Usually not. Most people who have one do not know they have it. Personality disorders are enduring patterns of behavior that develop before adulthood, most commonly in early childhood. They lack self-awareness of their own disorders and of the impact of their own behavior on those around them. When they get feedback for their negative behavior, they tend to become highly defensive rather than having insight into their part in the problem, which is often substantial. This is a big part of why they have an enduring pattern of dysfunctional behavior; it seems normal and necessary to them. But it does not work, and they often are unhappy. #4: Personality disorders can never change. Not necessarily. Historically, many people (including therapists) thought that personality disorders were unchangeable and therefore therapy was pointless. However, over the past 2-3 decades there have been breakthrough treatments that have succeeded at improving the behavior of some people with personality disorders. For example, there is a fairly successful treatment approach for borderline personality disorder called Dialectical Behavior Therapy, or DBT, which has helped many people overcome the diagnosis with improved self-awareness and self-control. Also, some people with other personality disorders (there are ten) have made some progress in therapy, such as some of those with narcissistic personality disorder. However, the vast majority of people with personality disorders do not seek or get treatment and remain stuck in dysfunction. #5: People with personality disorders know they are acting inappropriately. Usually not. This is one of the hardest things to accept about personality disorders. But they really, truly lack self-awareness of their part in their problems. They honestly believe that others have treated them unfairly for no good reason when others are usually reacting to their behavior or trying to set limits on their behavior. Since they cannot see their own part in their own problems, they are always searching for other explanations. Some blame life in general or the universe, while others blame specific people (these are the ones with high conflict personalities, who are preoccupied with targets of blame). #6: People with personality disorders could change if they just wanted to. Unlikely. Remember, a personality disorder is an “enduring pattern” of dysfunctional behavior. They cannot see their part in their problems and conflicts. In many ways, this problem is like that of alcoholics and addicts, who cannot see the connection of their own behavior to their problems in life. Only it’s even harder with personality disorders because the person has experienced their own patterns of behavior usually since early childhood as normal and necessary. There is no obvious cause of their difficulties, so people assume their behavior is knowingly bad and intentional. In reality, this is the problem: they cannot connect the dots from their own behavior to how others respond, and how they could change. #7: You should try to give them insight into their own behavior. Do not do this! Since they lack self-awareness and have an enduring pattern of behavior that they rarely change, feedback—even “constructive” feedback—feels like a personal attack to them. Not only do they not benefit from the feedback, but it

©2021 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. & Megan Hunter, MBA What Does Cancel Culture Mean? Although there is no single definition of cancel culture, it is about groups of people applying pressure to punish a person or group for what is perceived as a wrong opinion. It happens in the workplace, on social media, and in the celebrity community. Professors are boycotted for attending pro-police rallies. Authors’ publishing contracts are terminated for their opinions on other matters. Sports teams are under threat of elimination from tournaments because of religious beliefs. Journalists and others are losing jobs for decades-old social media posts or repeating an offensive word in conversation to clarify what’s being said. What is behind it? It seems we are in the age of offendedness and the age of tolerance and common sense are a distant memory. Applying pressure to reach a desired result is not a new concept. What is different is the new mob mentality mixed with an all-or-nothing judge-and-jury mentality. Loud voices of the offended attract the like-minded, strengthening the group bond and the volume. They are collectively emboldened and utilize the power and speed of social media to spread the message and add to the ranks. They apply pressure to someone with authority who, these days, usually caves to the pressure, firing the person, canceling the book, or, fill in the blank. Is it High Conflict Behavior? At the High Conflict Institute, we teach and write about high conflict behavior all the time. This behavior includes: Preoccupation with blaming others Lots of all-or-nothing thinking Unmanaged emotions and Extreme behavior or threats. Some people engage in a persistent pattern of high conflict behavior, so we think of them as high conflict people who need different methods of management beyond logical persuasion and criticism. So the questions are: (1) Do people who engage in cancel culture present a pattern of high conflict behavior? (2) Is cancel culture, by nature, high conflict? We can be fairly certain that at least some who engage in cancel culture fit the high conflict pattern. Cancel culture opens the door wide open to someone with a: preoccupation with blaming others (you don’t agree with me—you are my target of blame) all-or-nothing thinking (the target is all bad and must be eliminated; I’m right, you’re wrong) unmanaged emotions (I don’t agree with the target of blame, so I’m really mad) extreme behaviors or threats (public shaming on social media and outright calls for cancellation) While we won’t go so far as calling cancel culture high conflict, it is ripe for drifting into that territory in an unchecked society. It isn’t all bad, but it isn’t all good either, and put in the hands of someone with a high conflict personality can be downright devastating. Setting Limits on High Conflict Behavior Some people engage in a persistent pattern of high conflict behavior, so we think of them as high conflict people who need different methods of management beyond logical persuasion and criticism. In short, high conflict people need limits because they cannot stop themselves. We encourage people to set limits with three basic steps (see article on Setting Limits: Setting Limits with EAR™ ): State what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. Let others know what the consequences will be if they engage in the behavior that is unacceptable. If the unacceptable behavior occurs or persists, then impose the consequences. Generally, the consequences in daily life are those that a person can impose primarily by no longer providing their own benefits to the violator of the limits. In some cases, this means ending the relationship, such as getting divorced, firing an employee, or quitting a job. Words Matter In some cases, the issue is one of words. One of the big issues around words today is values and politics: freedom of expression versus words that hurt people. In the United States, we have the Bill of Rights, also known as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment says the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But this doesn’t mean total freedom of speech, as interpreted many times by the United States Supreme Court. For example, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not allowed—it’s not protected by the constitution. Who Decides? Twitter has a policy since March 2019 that says: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Healthy conversation is only possible when people feel safe from abuse and don’t resort to using violent language. For this reason, we have a policy against threatening violence on Twitter. We define violent threats as statements of an intent to kill or inflict serious physical harm on a specific person or group of people.  Based on this policy, Twitter permanently banned President Trump. One of his sons has stated that this was inappropriate “canceling” of his father. Was it? And who decides? In the case of Twitter, a private company, it is allowed to set its own policies and follow them. However, even German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is no fan of the prior president, has expressed concern about this: “The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended,” her spokesman said. He added that governments, not private companies, should decide on any limitations to freedom of speech. Germany has restrictions against disseminating “untrue facts” and “abusive criticism,” as well as denial of the Holocaust. Applying the policy fairly and evenly across the social media platform is a daunting challenge and one no platform will ever get completely right, whether because of sheer mass or internal bias. Setting