**You might really agree or really disagree with the below. In either case, you're awesome.** 

Marsha Linehan developed DBT in part due to her own BPD. This seems in part why DBT is so effective. If you've lived with illness X, you're directly acquainted with the suffering of illness X. This personal knowledge allows you to feel empathize toward someone with illness X in ways that others can't. One concrete way empathy via direct experience might matter is in assessing the *urgency* of a patient's situation, which isn't always evident in their words and actions.  

And empathy isn't just convenient for treatment, it's necessary: Without it, the struggles of those of us with BPD remain abstract and merely observable to clinicians. To dissect, analyze, and ultimately address one's BPD, it helps to consult with experts who not only know *about* the torments of BPD, but who have suffered and overcame those torments themselves. 

By analogy, you wouldn't--or, at least, shouldn't, I'd argue--try durian (a smelly fruit that I happen to love) on the advice of someone who has never had it. Likewise, you probably wouldn't take swimming lessons from someone who has never been in the water.

You might be thinking: "Ok, but if I had a broken arm it wouldn't matter if the doctor treating me has had a broken arm." And that's true. (Not only that, but such experience would probably be irrelevant anyway.) But it's different with BPD. For one thing, it's often hard to describe our experiences in ways that others genuinely understand. We don't always have the words and/or concepts. Having someone who's directly acquainted with BPD reduces the need for such vocabulary: our BPD peers often *just get it*. But also, someone with BPD might have access to vocabulary that we currently lack. With a broken arm, I don't need to describe the anatomical damage that was inflicted for the doctor to assess and treat it. I don't even really need to say anything. (If only X-rays detected BPD!) But to meaningfully treat BPD, I *do* need to have some understanding of patterns of thought and behavior, impulse triggers, and bodily awareness. Here, insight doesn't just promote recovery, it *constitutes* it. 

You might also be thinking: "Well, how do you know your clinician doesn't have BPD? That's not necessarily something they'd disclose." Again, true. I'm not saying that clinicians should disclose such information (that actually might be harmful); I'm saying that *having* BPD--disclosed or not--is probably useful experience to have when helping someone else address it. Useful experience will be beneficial whether or not it's talked about.  

A few clarifications:  

1. This all assumes that the person treating someone with BPD not only has lived experience with BPD, but is *successful in managing BPD in all the ways we standardly judge success* (functionality, personal flourishing, interpersonal effectiveness, etc.). Simply having BPD isn't enough to effectively help someone with BPD. More qualifications are needed.  
2. We can and do often benefit from treatment providers who don't have BPD. I'm not suggesting that they're useless. In fact, I believe that I've made significant progress with my BPD by working with a clinician who probably didn't have BPD. Also, having successfully recovered from BPD doesn't replace clinical and theoretical expertise with BPD.  
3. Ultimately, what I'm saying can be settled by scientific studies. Maybe BPD helps, maybe it doesn't. Currently it seems like recovery from BPD is possible through standard clinical treatment. But my arguiment might still hold: It's possible that the already good treatment from non-BPD-clinicians could be even better if more BPD clinicians existed. 

Thanks to the 2.5 people who read this...

Discussion and criticism are always welcome.