“You replied about four hours after I messaged, and I got into a spiral about it.”
Instead of: You ignored me all day.
A DBT skill — not one this book teaches
Check the facts
Check the facts is a DBT emotion-regulation skill and it is not taught in I Hate You—Don't Leave Me. The book's nearest chapter is 14, on cognitive defusion, which loosens a thought's grip rather than testing its accuracy. Those are different operations, so this skill is covered here separately.
The six questions, in order
The order is load-bearing. Most of the work happens in the first two steps, and skipping them turns the skill into an argument with yourself.
- 01
What is the emotion?
One word. Not 'bad', not 'a lot' — angry, ashamed, afraid, hurt, jealous. If you cannot get to one word, that is the whole task for today, and it is a legitimate place to stop.
- 02
What is the event that prompted it?
Just the event, stated as a camera would record it. 'She replied four hours later.' Not 'she ignored me' — that is already an interpretation, and it is the interpretation the entire skill is built to catch.
- 03
What am I assuming about it?
Now write the interpretation deliberately, so it is visible. 'She replied late because she is losing interest.' Getting it onto paper separates it from the event, and once separated it stops presenting itself as perception.
- 04
What else could explain it?
At least three alternatives, and they must be plausible rather than charitable. Work, phone on silent, a bad day of her own. You are not required to believe any of them — only to establish that the first interpretation was a selection rather than an observation.
- 05
Am I catastrophising the outcome?
Name the feared outcome exactly, then describe how you would cope if it happened. Not to reassure yourself — to demonstrate that survivable is different from unbearable, which is where most of the intensity is coming from.
- 06
Does the emotion fit the facts?
And crucially: how intense does it fit? Late reply, mild irritation — fits. Late reply, certainty of abandonment and four hours of panic — the emotion fits an event that did not happen.
The rewrite, in practice
What the skill produces is a sentence you could say out loud without it landing as an accusation. These are the substitutions it tends to generate.
“When plans change late I get more thrown than the situation warrants. That's mine, and it helps if I know earlier.”
Instead of: You always cancel on me.
“I noticed you were quieter than usual tonight and I've been assuming it was about me. Was it?”
Instead of: What did I do wrong?
“I felt dismissed in that conversation. I don't know that you meant it that way.”
Instead of: You clearly don't care what I think.
“I'm at about an eight and the situation is maybe a three. Give me an hour before we talk.”
Instead of: I'm fine.
“The thing I'm actually afraid of is that you're getting tired of me. I know that's a leap from a short reply.”
Instead of: Just tell me the truth, you're done.
Questions about using it
Including the objection that matters most — what happens when the emotion turns out to fit.
Is check the facts in this book?
No. Chapter 14 covers cognitive defusion, which treats a thought as a thought rather than testing whether it is accurate, and chapter 12 covers naming the emotion. Neither is this skill. For check the facts specifically, a DBT skills manual or a skills group is the right source.
What if the emotion does fit the facts?
Then you have a problem rather than a distortion, and the skill has done its job. This is the most important thing to understand about it: it is not a technique for talking yourself out of feelings. If someone is genuinely withdrawing, the fear is accurate, and what you need next is problem-solving or a conversation — not more checking.
Isn't this just telling myself I'm overreacting?
No, and if it is functioning that way you are doing it wrong. The skill tests fit, in both directions. Used as a stick, it becomes self-invalidation with a worksheet attached, which is worse than the original spiral.
Can I do it during the emotion?
Not at full intensity — the analysis is not available there. Bring the intensity down first, then check. Written down, afterwards, is where it works, and where the patterns start showing up across weeks.
How is it different from just thinking about it?
Rumination revisits the same interpretation repeatedly. This forces alternatives onto paper and asks about intensity as well as accuracy. The written step is not optional — done in your head it collapses back into rumination within a minute.
Does the book cover anything like this?
Chapter 10's opposite action asks a related question — whether an urge fits the facts — and chapter 13's validation work covers what to do once you have established that a reaction made sense. The overlap is real; the skill itself is not there.
Educational disclaimer: this page supports book discovery and general learning about borderline personality disorder. It does not diagnose, replace individualised professional care, or provide emergency support. If you are in crisis, contact local emergency services or a crisis line — see the crisis support page.