Jump to content

Talk:Personal boundaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neast024.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utter tripe

[edit]

This is University code-talk for "do what you like, and use big words to make it sound OK." The only boundaries that matter are those established in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.207.79 (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal boundaries do matter. Violating them sometimes leads to negative consequences. Jim Michael (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity

[edit]

It seems like this article puts a lot of emphasis on Nina Brown's theories; they're even right in the lead. Although it says "According to Nina Brown", it seems a lot of these theories are asserted as fact, and it even says "This is ideal" in regards to "flexible" people. It also uses the word bad in the title of the section "The bad boundaries of narcissists". A lot of this article seems to not be NPOV. Wuffyz 06:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By its nature, personal boundaries is an abstract concept. There is quite a lot of other material on personal boundaries but Brown to me has put it in a more accessible clearer way than anything else i have seen. Hopefully in time material from others will go in and not just Browns. It is Hotchkiss who referred to the "Bad Boundaries of Narcissists" not Brown - what he meant was their boundaries are dysfunctional. It was not specifically a slight on narcissists - he was trying to say that their boundaries engulf other people so that others become an extension of themselves. About 30% of psychology articles on Wikipedia are completely uncited, not to mention many of the other 70% of psychology articles with uncited sections. At least I provide citations for my work.--Penbat (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I complain about a lack of citations? Why did you remove the wikify tag? Also, I mentioned the "This is ideal" line. How is that in anyway NPOV? I didn't see where you addressed this. Maybe that's how Nina Brown feels, and it'd be fine with me if we mention that she said that, but I don't want this to be mentioned by Wikipedia as fact. I'm going to take that line out. Wuffyz 07:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

[edit]

The lead seems too long to me. Isn't it supposed to introduce people to different topics, then go into detail in the rest of the article? It seems a little disorganized like this. I'm adding a rewrite tag. Wuffyz 07:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Physical boundaries

[edit]

I see that there is mention of physical boundaries in the lead, but none later in the article. Wuffyz 07:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition

[edit]

At no point in the page is the concept of personal boundaries defined. It seems that the article is supposed to merely expand on whatever concept the reader has of personal boundaries. Justin Satyr (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the ideal."

[edit]

I made a new section about one four-word sentence. I do not think that this sentence should be included in such a way. It seems to be presented as fact. Also, during a quick look at the cited book, I couldn't find where Nina Brown considers the flexible type to be the ideal. Maybe there should be a more specific reference than just the book in general. Penbat said in an edit summary of an edit which reinserted the statement, "deleting this undermines the integrity of the source - anyway the ideal means most healthy for the individual". I can't find where the whole "ideal means most healthy for the individual" thing is mentioned within the article. - Wuffyz 08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of quotes

[edit]

This article uses quotes to explain the article without explaining their context, and sometimes without even attributing the quote to anyone other than in the references, such as the Patricia Evans one. I think that because this article relies so much on quotations, that it can be arranged to promote a certain point of view and still appear referenced and neutral. I'm going to add a cleanup tag. See WP:QUOTEFARM. - Wuffyz 08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability of quoted proclamations

[edit]

The article seems to rely a lot on quotations, and seems to present many of them as fact. But some of those quotations contain statements that seem sort of unverifiable. In the article there is the line, "As one ex put it, 'If you had firm boundaries in the face of a narcissist, the relationship wouldn't last' " I do not know how this would be verified. It is a quote, but I think it is used here as a means of presenting a statement as fact. - Wuffyz 08:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No question it is at least several levels of hearsay deep. I'm mot going to look up the details of the source, but it seems at a glance to be someone unqualified in psychology ( one level of hearsay and reporting on something they are not qualified, scientifically to report on) reporting what another person said ( level two, and failing to address bias), about what one of their former relationships said ( level three and even if he is a narcisist rather than that just being what the bitter Ex says, assumes, without proof, that he is qualified to speak for all of them). Unlesss some one has a really good reason why this should be here, it needs to go. 75.191.151.75 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are citations and quotes from various reliable sources that generally reinforce each other. There is nothing unusual about the way this article is presented.--Penbat (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic breaches of personal boundaries

[edit]

i dont have any sources as yet but think that the following are gross symbolic breaches of personal boundaries to humiliate the defeated in battle:

  • Edward I built very strong castles along the Welsh coastline as far into Welsh territory as possible.
  • Women and men getting raped by enemy soldiers.

--Penbat (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personality disorders

[edit]

The article states that narcissists do not respect personal boundaries. Is that true of all Cluster B people? Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was quite shocked to read the text in the article. The author knows a lot about narcissists but she writes in an unscientific, way-too-broad style. Of course narcissists know that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves - unless they are deep down in a psychosis. As for your question, well, it is reasonable to assume that all Cluster B people have difficulties with personal boundaries, with perceiving them and respecting them, however, I don't have a reliable source for you. Lova Falk talk 16:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it help that the book has a foreword by James F. Masterson, a leading academic on personality disorders and narcissism ? Anyway the point made seems quite valid to me that narcissists just use certain people as narcissistic supply and not separate entities. Do you understand narcissistic supply ? Narcissistic supply being a narcissism thing relates specifically to narcissism rather than cluster B in general.--Penbat (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let us have this discussion on Talk:Narcissism instead. Lova Falk talk 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article reorganization

[edit]

I reorganized the article to clarify the main points and to fill in missing information.

A summary of the work (done in steps so that it can be reviewed):

  1. Starting file size: 10,320 bytes
  2. Introduction → Rewrote for a novice reader
  3. New section → [Values and boundaries concept ]→ adding information and consolidated existing information
  4. See also → Reduced list to the most pertinent articles (some were of tertiary relevance at best)‬
  5. Criticism → [Removed section] → If anyone can make sense of this, please feel free to rewrite and restore
  6. ‪Further reading → Reformatted list and limited to top selling authors‬/books (I temporarily included Amazon rankings for anyone trying to sort out the 100 plus potential books in this category
  7. Categories → Reduced to directly related lists. Please add back any important categories that were removed
  8. Graphics → Added 2
  9. Renamed section → Narcissism renamed to [Complicating personalities and situations]
  10. Renamed page → To Setting boundaries (this is the term that will be searched on Google and Wikipedia
  11. Redirects → Added Personal boundaries, Set boundaries, Setting limits
  12. Disambiguation → Boundary, Limit
  13. Ending file size: 17,008 bytes
    Wiki-psyc (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. DFlhb (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious about the current state of this article

[edit]

Wiki-psyc changed the name of this article from "personal boundaries" to "setting boundaries" without any discussion. I am far from convinced that it is a good idea. The scope of this article is now confused and now includes personal space aka proxemics which is about physical distances - see Setting_boundaries#Scope. Personal boundaries focused on psychological boundaries but oddly Wiki-psyc just took it out of the scope list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&diff=712859264&oldid=712848747. Nearly all the material in this article eg Setting boundaries#Assertiveness levels is only talking about psychological boundaries. At the same time in the lead we get told what a boundary is with an unnecessary picture of someone playing tennis to illustrate the obvious. We also have a proxemic image later in the article which is irrelevant (physical boundaries not psychological boundaries).

Wiki-psyc is wrong to claim that "setting boundaries" is the correct terminology. He renamed without any discussion as if it was self evident. Mostly this article covers boundaries in the psychological sense. In many books it is referred to as just "boundaries" or "personal boundaries". For example in "Better Boundaries" by Black & Enns the title just uses "boundaries" but internally the book refers to "personal boundaries". "Setting boundaries" does not help - it adds to the confusion as to what sort of boundaries we are we talking about - physical boundaries, psychological boundaries or what ? Currently in Setting_boundaries#Scope there is mention of "mental boundaries" - what are they ? Something to do with eg boundaries of the mind maybe ? In my view "personal boundaries" is more helpful - it obviously refers to a specific person's identity while personal space aka proxemics is more of a general sociological concept.

Wiki-psyc posted Talk:Setting_boundaries#Article_reorganization exactly 30 minutes after the move was done.

I notice that "personal boundaries" and "setting boundaries" have a similar number of entries on Google but "setting boundaries" is often used in various unrelated contexts:

--Penbat (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Categories The categories of boundaries (mental and physical) appear in all of the leading books on the subject (as cited in the article). The categories of mental and physical were introduced into this article in October 2010 (revision 392531613) by Jacobisq.
Physical - One of the most basic "boundary" violations is inappropriate touch or encroaching on someone's space.
Mental - I think that your argument that there are no such thing as "mental boundaries" and then suggesting the re-titling the article "psychological boundaries" is in internally conflicting. Psychological means "mental".
Vote Against I vote against renaming this article "psychological boundaries" as it is exclusive of physical and other boundary categories that appear in the literature.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: To keep this in context, Penbat has made 13 edits to his proposal above since its original posting including dropping his proposal to name the article psychological boundaries after I responding to his proposal. ~ Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were obviously developing as I was posting. Yes I made quite a few edits which I was entitled to do. Unfortunately you posted just momentarily before my final edit causing some edit conflict muddle. Obviously after you responded it would have been unfair to continue editing my post and instead I would have continued underneath which is what I have done. We now seem to be having an irrelevant discussion about "psychological boundaries" which I briefly toyed with as a possibility for 3 edits before deleting and rejecting. I only mentioned it as an incidental point anyway. It is patently obvious that the choice is between "setting boundaries" and "personal boundaries" so this discussion seems to be on a wild goose chase. To get this discussion back on track I suggest you wipe any discussion on "psychological boundaries" which is obviously a non starter. Please discuss the points I raised and still remain not single out an issue that I raised momentarily and deleted shortly afterwards.--Penbat (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal boundaries" has the advantage that "personal" is an adjective helping to qualify "boundaries" while "setting" is a verb which says nothing about the type of boundaries we are talking about.--Penbat (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat, if you need 70 minutes and 19 drafts to make a talk page comment, it might be more courteous to use the sandbox than to chastise those who respond in good faith to what you post.

An article name change was made 7 months ago without challenge, and by definition, is considered a bold and appropriate move as it went uncontested for a very long time.
Your name change suggestion is contested and therefore it is inappropriate to implement a change until other editors have weighed in.
I vote no change - The links you posted above and do not make a compelling case for name change - if anything they support "no change". I think your suggested name is an OK one, but it is not superior to the current name and the rationale for change is not compelling enough to justify the renaming of an article.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a vote to the side of "Personal Boundaries". Using "setting" tells us nothing about the type of boundaries, plus it implies that we are discussing an active process of setting boundaries. "Setting boundaries" could be referring to the process of laying out measurement to delineate the edge of a person's property for all we know.

76.106.172.45 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Woody[reply]

"Addiction" section is pure conjecture

[edit]

The addiction section reads:

"Addicts often believe that being in control of others is how you achieve success and happiness in life. People who follow this rule use it as a survival skill, having usually learned it in childhood. As long as they make the rules, no one can back them into a corner with their feelings."

This is crazy. It's pure conjecture, and a gross over-generalization of a large group of people. The source is not scientific--it's a book describing one person's experience with addiction.

I removed this section once before, and it was reverted due to "vandalism".

76.106.172.45 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Woody[reply]

Agreed, I removed it as well. Beach drifter (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Especially when the WP:SOCK !votes are discounted, we have clear consensus that the former title Personal boundaries better suits the subject and Wikipedia's titling guidelines. Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Setting boundaries → Personal boundaries – I am simply asking for the status quo to be restored. "Personal boundaries" was renamed as "setting boundaries" by Wiki-psyc without any discussion or WP:RM on 21 August 2015.

There has already been an administrative ruling that the status quo name for this article is Setting Boundaries therefore any change needs to meet the standards outlined in WP:MOVE to justify a change. This new title does not meet any of those criteria.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • NO CHANGE - The article is appropriately named as it describes a life skill and a process, and the subheadings discusses a process.
The name is conventional. Two of the top 5 books listed by Amazon (which appear in the article reading list) have Setting Boundaries in their titles. Personal boundaries does not appear in any title.
Penbat did a survey of books and articles titlesand nothing in that survey suggests that the newly proposed title is more conventional - if fact, the opposite is true.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you sure you are not Wiki-psyc ? You have both unconventionally used "No change" instead of "Oppose". Also you both make strong assertions without supportive evidence, examples or links. If you teach the subject you must have plenty of supportive material you could have given. Give examples of the use of "setting boundaries" by experts.--Penbat (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on basis of nom's evidence. While Wiki-psyc's point about "Setting Boundaries" showing up in book titles is noted, it's still consistent with titling this "Personal Boundaries"; it can just mean the book titles are on the topic of "Setting (personal) boundaries" while Wikipedia covers the general concept, rather than be a How-To guide. SnowFire (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wiki-psyc, I wouldn't overstate the importance of the "administrative ruling." WP:ANI was acting more like an advice board there, not endorsing either title, but merely noting that since this move happened awhile ago, there weren't procedural grounds to speedy revert. That wasn't a judgment on which title was "better". SnowFire (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Penbat's request is "I am simply asking for the status quo to be restored". My comment regarding the ANI is specifically that they ruled that the status quo name is Personal Boundaries and this is not a revert war.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Give it a rest with your sockpuppets Wiki-psyc. This is the third contribution opposing, each asserting that "setting boundaries" is the right choice without supplying any supportive evidence, links or examples. None of the points I made in my submission have been challenged. Ditnog has apparently suddenly sprung to life making his first edit in three and a half years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ditnog. See how Wiki-psyc hit the ground running on his first edits in January 2015 onwards changing categories and templates, creating new articles, getting involved in AFDs, using a sandbox, creating a sophisticated user page (User:Wiki-psyc) etc https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wiki-psyc&offset=&limit=500&target=Wiki-psyc https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wiki-psyc&offset=20150814142109&limit=500&target=Wiki-psyc --Penbat (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Maintain Neutrality, Penbat
I have asked the administrators and I ask you, as the host, to restore neutrality to this WP:RM. I also ask you to take any discussions about my integrity as an editor offline, here, and not disrupt this review. Personally, I think this is a minor issue and that Wikipedia's readers will be just as well served with either article title. Let's keep it in perspective.Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The oppose side's arguments are non-existent - just plain assertions not backed by any evidence. On top of the arguments in my submission, SnowFire makes the good point that Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. Just taking my first point alone, I cannot see any other Wikipedia article starting with "setting" as a verb except perhaps setting up to fail which is a phrase in everyday use, setting apart and setting the features which have specialist meanings. In the case of boundaries there is a particular issue with the need for proper disambiguation which "setting" does not help with.Penbat (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My position is neutral for the moment, for the following reasons:
  • On the one hand, "Setting boundaries" looks better in the following sense: The first paragraph(s) of recent article versions that have a lead section worded for "Setting boundaries" are much more convincing (to me at least) than those of recent versions that have a lead section worded for "Personal boundaries". Also, the argument that other articles do not start with "Setting" is not a strong argument in my view, in the sense that also other articles have a lemma in the -ing form, for example Coping (psychology). So, if someone wants to move the article to "personal boundaries", it would be helpful if he/she would indicate also what the proposed lead should be in that case.
  • On the other hand, "Personal boundaries" looks better in the following sense: The expression "Setting boundaries" can also mean other forms of boundaries, like discipline (in general), for example parents setting rules and boundaries for their children. So, if someone wants to keep the article as "Setting boundaries", it would be helpful if he/she would indicate what disambiguation indications would be proposed in that case.
--Chris Howard (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the references in the current lead ("Patricia Evans, Controlling People (Avon 2002) p. 33-7" and "G. B. and J. S. Lundberg, I Don't Have to Make Everything All Better (2000) p. 13.)" were in the article before Wiki-psyc had anything to do with it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&oldid=663116484 Apparently the Evans book just refers to "boundaries" while the Lundberg explicitly refers to "personal boundaries". The other reference is to a webpage Setting Boundaries and Setting Limits, the site for which is in general to do with borderline personality disorder and can be argued is not a reliable source for this article. The fact that three sentences were lifted from this source and they happen to be used as introductory sentences is incidental - not a reason to rename the article as "setting boundaries". There are 38 other cites used in the article I can only see one other source with uses something similar to "setting" - "Katherine, Anne Where to Draw the Line: How to Set Healthy Boundaries Every Day 2000" but as SnowFire has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. As also as previously discussed "personal boundaries" provides far better disambiguation than "setting boundaries". Does this help or do you have any other concerns ? --Penbat (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Penbat: What lead would you propose for a lemma "Personal boundaries"? (Or is there an earlier version with a lead for "Personal boundaries" that you would recommend?) I am not quite happy with the word "Setting" simply being replaced by "Personal", because the definition then no longer seems to fit the lemma very well. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly 30% of the article covers "setting boundaries" but the rest does not. In Setting_boundaries#Complicating_factors, Setting_boundaries#Scope and Setting_boundaries#Assertiveness_levels it explains personal boundaries as a static concept. Much of Setting_boundaries#Process is supported by the dubious Setting Boundaries and Setting Limits link. However the first three paragraphs of Setting_boundaries#Values_and_boundaries_concept seem to be credibly about setting boundaries as is Setting_boundaries#Risks_of_reestablishing_values_and_boundaries. Apart from the overwhelming disambiguation advantages of "personal boundaries", "setting boundaries" is clearly just an aspect of the broader concept. Boundaries are mainly described in this article as a static concept. In real life relatively few people are actively changing their boundaries as a life skill. Yes "setting boundaries" deserves a mention in the lead but it is wrong to overemphasise one aspect of "personal boundaries". Essentially personal boundaries is a psychological concept which in some cases are changeable.--Penbat (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - This may be part of the confusion. Setting boundaries is not a static concept - it is a very dynamic one. Yes, values are generally static, but the setting of boundaries is a very fluid and dynamic life skill - we adapt the way we communicate and enforce our values from challenges on an ongoing basis in life. How we "set" (communicate and enforce) a boundary is conditioned on the people involved and the situations presented. For example, every time we get a new boss or a new employee or a new romantic partner enters our life, the dynamic of setting boundaries begins (with healthy individuals). Every time we are confronted with a challenge, like a drunken employer, we need to come up with a situation appropriate actions. How we handle a drunken boss vs a drunken employee vs a drunken stranger are all uniquely different - we don't always pepper spray or call the police. How we handle a fourth challenge is different than how we handle a a first challenge. The ability to appropriately and effectively protect our values with the least amount of drama is the life skill of setting boundaries.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I was trying to say is that self evidently only a tiny percentage of the global population:
Taking your point more broadly, show me where in the article it deals with boundaries in everyday life on a dynamic level ? I cannot see anywhere. Setting_boundaries#Complicating factors and Setting boundaries#Assertiveness levels, for example, both provide descriptions of possible boundary types on a static level. It undermines the "setting boundaries" case even more as there is confusion as to what "setting boundaries" actually means.--Penbat (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It dubious whether Setting Boundaries and Setting Limits passes WP:RS. The associated website specialises in borderline personality disorder. The Setting Boundaries and Setting Limits webpage does not have any cites. It is also more of an annex to the main subject of the website (BPD). Setting boundaries currently gives huge weight and credibility to this single reference - it underpins the current name of this article, the first three sentences in the lead and much of setting boundaries#Process. Because of this huge weighting, it is even more dubious whether it passes WP:RS.
I can find nothing relevant to the author of that web page, "R. Skip Johnson", in Google Books or Scholar. --Penbat (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
R. Skip Johnson is simply listed here but without any named position for http://bpdfamily.com. It does not say that he has any relevant academic or clinical expertise.
There are 38 other different cites given in setting boundaries, many from contributors with relevant academic and clinical knowledge eg John Townsend (author), Charles Whitfield, Robin Skynner and Henry Cloud.
Just searched on my Kindle copy of "Whitfield, M.D, Charles L. (2010). Boundaries and Relationships: Knowing, Protecting and Enjoying the Self (2 ed.). HCI Books." Result is 29 matches for phrase "personal boundaries", 10 matches for phrase "setting boundaries". --Penbat (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comment There is currently a sockpuppet investigation in progress which may have an impact on this WP:RM - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc --Penbat (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead paragraph borrows heavily from the BPDFamily source (Johnson)

[edit]

The lead sentence and other following sentences were not lifted verbatim but are pretty much plagiarized. The current lead paragraph:

Personal boundaries or the act of setting boundaries is a life skill that has been popularized by self help authors and support groups since the mid-1980s. Personal boundaries are established by changing one's own response to interpersonal situations, rather than expecting other people to change their behaviors to comply with your boundary. For example, if the boundary is to not interact with a particular person, then one sets a boundary by deciding not to see or engage with that person, and one enforces the boundary by politely declining invitations to events that include that person and by politely leaving the room if that person arrives unexpectedly. The boundary is thus respected without requiring the assistance or cooperation of any other people. Setting a boundary is different from issuing an ultimatum; an ultimatum is a demand that other people change their choices so that their behavior aligns with the boundary-setter's own preferences and personal values.

The term "boundary" is a metaphor, with in-bounds meaning acceptable and out-of-bounds meaning unacceptable. The concept of boundaries has been widely adopted by the counseling profession. Universal applicability of the concept has been questioned.

Original text from BPDFamily source:

"Setting Boundaries" is a life skill that has been recommended by therapists, self-help authors and support groups since the mid 1980's. It is the practice of openly communicating, asserting, and defending personal values. The term "boundary" is a metaphor. "In bounds" means acceptable to you. "Out-of-bounds" means unacceptable.

Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "personal boundaries" mean?

[edit]

I don't understand this about the text on the personal boundaries page, I think it's wrong and correct it.

Text from the Wikipedia page:

For example, if the boundary is to not interact with a particular person, then one sets a boundary by deciding not to see or engage with that person, and one enforces the boundary by politely declining invitations to events that include that person and by politely leaving the room if that person arrives unexpectedly. The boundary is thus respected without requiring the assistance or cooperation of any other people. Contadorgil (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_boundaries&oldid=1223908619"