Is Boundaries and Difficult Conversations Something You’re Either Good or Bad At?
Q: I always describe myself as “bad at boundaries.” Is this a useful way of thinking about it, or is there a more accurate frame?
The binary frame — good at this or bad at this — is one of the most common and least useful ways to understand limit-holding patterns. Here’s why, and what’s more accurate.
What the Binary Frame Gets Wrong
“Bad at boundaries” suggests:
– A fixed trait that doesn’t significantly vary by context
– A personal inadequacy rather than a learned pattern
– A stable condition rather than something that changes
All three of these are inaccurate. Limit-holding ability varies significantly by context. It’s a learned pattern, not an innate trait. And it changes — substantially — through the right kind of work over time.
The Actual Landscape
Most people who describe themselves as “bad at boundaries” are actually quite good at holding limits in some contexts and genuinely challenged in others.
Context matters: The same person who cannot say no to a longtime client might have no difficulty declining requests from service providers, setting clear expectations with new professional contacts, or being direct in professional communications outside of their main service relationships. The “bad at boundaries” characterization erases this variation.
Relationship type matters: Limit-holding is harder in relationships with more emotional investment, more historical weight, or more structural power differential. “Bad at limits” in long-term client relationships doesn’t tell you much about limit-holding capacity in general.
Domain matters: Many people hold limits clearly in professional contexts and find it very difficult in family contexts, or vice versa. The domains can look almost completely different.
Why the Binary Persists
The “bad at this” binary persists because the most salient experiences tend to be the failures. When a limit collapses — when the session goes another hour, when you say yes to something you intended to decline — that registers prominently. When a limit holds easily — when you decline something without a second thought, when a new agreement gets stated clearly at the outset — that tends to register as just normal behavior, not as evidence about your limit-holding capacity.
The memorable events bias the self-assessment toward the failures. A more accurate picture requires deliberate attention to the successes.
A More Useful Frame
Rather than “bad at limits,” the more useful frame is:
- “I have a pattern that activates more strongly in [specific contexts]”
- “My capacity for direct communication is stronger in [these areas] than in [those areas]”
- “I’m at [this point] in the process of updating a learned nervous system response”
This frame is more accurate because it’s specific and because it leaves room for change. “Bad at limits” implies a fixed inadequacy. “Pattern that activates in certain contexts” implies something that varies and can be worked with.
The Practical Difference
How you characterize the pattern shapes what interventions make sense.
“Bad at boundaries” → work on becoming a different kind of person who is better at this thing.
“Pattern that activates in specific contexts” → identify the specific contexts, understand the activation, start building graduated experience in the lower-activation versions.
The second frame is more accurate and produces more effective interventions.
You are not globally bad at this. You have a pattern with specific triggers, specific contexts, and specific costs — and that pattern changes through specific, well-aimed work over time.
The daily practice works with the specific pattern, not with the global characterization.
The Abundance GPS Skool community holds this more accurate, nuanced view of the work.
Leave a Reply