Okay, now flip this around, and it also seems to describe what the N experiences. Even the slightest mention of anything that might need to be done differently is apparently expereinced as a personal attack on the N. Compounding this is the fact that the N seems to be endlessly confident that he can do no wrong, so he puts little effort into doing things in an advisable manner, thereby creating many opportunities for disagreement (i.e., threats to his psychological safety).
If an N eats pizza for lunch every day of the week for years, and has a very high cholesterol count reported after his annual physical, he really can't relate to the idea that he is doing something wrong (i.e., harming himself). Any suggestion that he change his diet is seen as an attempt to control (invalidate) him. His rage (which is so extreme that it threatens to invalidate his partner) is self-described as a response to attempts to control (invalidate) him.
It's a vicious cycle. His oblivious, bizare behavior invites correction, which he experiences as attempted invalidation, and then he flares rage at his partner, which is so destructive that it could make nearly anyone feel invalidated. Now he thinks he has evened up the score. But his partner thinks that he has launched an unprovoked attack.
The only way that I have found to minimize the N's experience of feeling invalidated in the event of a disagreement, is to cite an expert. When his partner tells the N that his doctor's nurse advised that since he refuses to change his diet, his partner needs to buy lots of life insurance on him (I know, she's probably not supposed to be that blunt), the frank words of another seemed to be slightly less problematic for him. He actually started eating better occasionally.
I am trying to come to some kind of understanding of this cycle of abuse (this abuse is rage, of a non-violent but horrible nature). I was stunned to hear the raging N describe his feelings of anger building over days because of numerous slights, which having read the above I now think sound like feelings of invalidation. He said that he was constantly ignored (this happens if he tries to set an agenda and his partner wants to discuss what will be on the agenda, before discussing when it will be done; or at other times because he thinks that his partner should know what he wants without his saying anything). He also complains of constantly being "given attitude" (e.g., when his partner rolls her eyes in response to his comments about his perfection, infallibility, etc., or when she simply tells him that something needs to be corrected, and meets his automatic resistance with insistence).
I think that this situation is very different from being in a relationship with an N where the N is one's parent, since a parent is in a position of authority. When the N is one's partner, one expects to function as peers. But if the N turns normal, everyday situations into perceived assaults on his psyche, and rage builds within him until he blows up, and attempts to dominate/intimidate his partner, it gives one a great deal to try to understand. The N feels invalidated in situations that would be no biggie to another person. His reaction is to try to invalidate the person that he perceives to be his attacker. If he can invalidate the perceived attacker, then the attacker can no longer invalidate him. He is defending himself against something that is the product of his own mind.
Oh dear. I think it would be helpful to have more than one undergrad course in psychology under my belt right about now. Even if I can understand it, I sure don't know what to do about it.
